Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Liverpool

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science,, if the will ensure that the schools closures he is urging on the city of Liverpool do not deprive communities of essential community facilities.

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on education standards in Liverpool following his meeting with Liverpool city council leaders.

Mr. John Browne: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science following Her Majesty's inspec-torate's recent report, what measures he proposes to take to improve the educational provision in Liverpool.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): When they met me on 26 May, the leaders of Liverpool city council agreed to produce plans by this September for the city-wide reorganisation of its schools. Subsequently I wrote to the leader of the council on 7 June setting out the compelling educational case for such reorganisation if standards and quality are to be maintained and improved, and noting a school's role in its community as one of the factors to be weighed when making judgments about the future. I intend to visit Liverpool next month to review progress.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister agree that when a school closes the community loses a community facility and a focus, as well as a school? Will he therefore consider adapting every building that is released by a school closure on Merseyside or in Liverpool for youth and community facilities and, perhaps, for resources centres for the young unemployed? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister with responsibility for Merseyside, to make funds available for that purpose so that Merseyside can benefit from the closures, although it will suffer in community terms initially?

Sir Keith Joseph: The short answer is "Yes". I am encouraged to find that both the local education authority and the local authority are well aware of the case for using released buildings for the maximum local benefit.

Mr. Alton: Does the Secretary of State agree that procrastination during the past 20 years, during which time

five schemes have been offered to the Department of Education and Science, all of which have either been turned down or only partially implemented, is one of the reasons why schools in Liverpool are in a constant state of turmoil or in the melting pot? Does he agree that the £3 million reduction in Liverpool's education budget is a direct result of the Department's failure to reimburse Liverpool for its further and advanced education facilities and that it is endangering the quality of service offered by the Liverpool education authority?

Sir Keith Joseph: Although I accept that Liverpool advanced to my predecessors several proposals for reorganisation, it is not beneficial to try to allocate responsibility for the need of successive Governments, having judged the merits, to turn down some of the schemes. Moreover, HMI report on the Liverpool problem did not identify lack of resources as the main problem.

Mr. Parry: When the Secretary of State visits Liverpool, will he spend some time on the problem of three small primary schools in my constituency? Is he aware that they were to be closed and that a new primary school was to be built in the cathedral precinct? Is he aware also that the Liberal-controlled council has done a U-turn on the issue and that there is grave concern among parents and teachers about that? Will he visit the site and meet some of the parents and teachers when he comes to Liverpool?

Sir Keith Joseph: I cannot undertake to visit, in the limited time available, all the areas where there are problems. Under statute, I am allowed to respond only to proposals that have been made by the local education authority. The hon. Gentleman should make his case to the local education authority.

Mr. Browne: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) did not hear the Secretary of State's main answer, but if he is not satisfied with it I shall call him to put a supplementary question.

Mr. Browne: I apologise for not having been present for the main answer, Mr. Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that children have not been taken into account politically in education? Does he agree also that that happens throughout the country, but that Liverpool offers an easily isolated example? Will he take nation-wide action to alleviate the problem and take tougher action against local authorities in order to benefit children?

Sir Keith Joseph: Understandably, in Liverpool, as no doubt in other areas, the view is that the interests of the children are best served by the fierce protection of local schools as they are. That is not always in the best interests of the children, as I tried to explain in my letter to Sir Trevor Jones a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Dobson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that at least some of Liverpool's education problems spring from the incapacity of the alliance, in apparently breaking the mould of politics in Liverpool, to do anything about the city's education problems? Secondly, will he ensure that no proposals go through for the closure of schools in Croxteth—as opposed to Toxteth—until he has considered proposals covering the whole Liverpool area?

Sir Keith Joseph: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I have today written to one of the Liverpool councillors about Croxteth. The letter is being released to local Members of Parliament and to the press.
As for the alliance, I do not wish to enter into local political issues, but I found the attitude of the local authority representatives who came to see me a few weeks ago very constructive, and I welcome that.

Mr. Thornton: While my right hon. Friend is considering the overall problems of education in Liverpool, will he bear in mind the urgent problems of secondary allocation this year? Is he aware that, because of delays in the appeals procedure, many parents will not know before the end of this term to which schools their children have been allocated?

Sir Keith Joseph: I have no power in this matter. It is one for the local education authority. I very much hope that it will make rapid progress with the appeals.

Mixed Age Teaching

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the increase in mixed age teaching in maintained and voluntary-aided schools in England since 1979.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): Figures are not available, but Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools has noted an increase in the incidence of mixed age teaching as a direct consequence of the fall in school rolls.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister acknowledge that Her Majesty's inspectorate also points out that mixed age teaching in primary schools almost automatically leads to a reduction in the ability of children to learn to read and to use mathematics? Will he therefore ensure that the cuts that have led to this state of affairs are restored so that educational standards are at least maintained under the Conservative Government, who were elected on a promise to improve standards?

Dr. Boyson: The move to mixed age teaching arises not from any cuts but fom a decline in the number of children in the schools. There are now half a million fewer children in the schools than there were a few years ago. That being so, either schools must close or amalgamate or there must be more mixed age teaching. The hon. Gentleman is right. All the evidence shows that when 25 or more children from two or more age groups are taught together, scores in English and mathematics are lower than for those of children taught in single age groups.

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for many years there has been mixed age teaching, which I deplore, in primary schools controlled by Labour authorities, and that this system of teaching has been advocated by a number of Labour educationists for many years?

Dr. Boyson: As my hon. Friend knows, there have been various fashions in education in the past 10 or 20 years. Vertical or family grouping was one. Fortunately, it is now passing. There are two reasons for mixed age teaching. Either the school is too small to have separate classes, as in village schools, or the philosophy is that if children are brought together they will integrate socially, even at the expense of academic standards.

Mr. McNally: Will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's inspectorate forecast that about 70 per cent. of primary schools would have some mixed age teaching by the mid-1970s? Are not some local authorities using that as a soft option to make cuts? Does he agree that mixed age teaching is bound to fail unless it is backed up by specialists in special subjects and by good use of part-time teaching, which he is not encouraging?

Dr. Boyson: The pupil-teacher ratio in our schools is now the lowest ever, so that mixed age teaching has nothing to do with cuts. The ratio is lower than it was when the Labour Government were in power. There are fewer children in the schools. Therefore, unless schools are closed or amalgamated so that single age teaching may be carried out, there will be more mixed age teaching. There are 10 per cent. more primary schools than before with between 100 and 200 children. This shows the importance of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the need to consider teaching and schools overall to ensure that children have the best deal.

Mr. John Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who represent rural constituencies would rather have mixed age teaching than see village schools closed? Does he agree that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) made a very good point on this in his supplementary question to question No. 1?

Dr. Boyson: I take my hon. Friend's point. The decision is made because there is no other way to keep schools close to parents and children. That is very different from mixed age teaching in schools in cities where alternatives can be arranged.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Minister either withdraw his statement that mixed age teaching has nothing to do with cuts, or write to Her Majesty's inspectorate telling it that in his considered judgment it was absolutely wrong to report in paragraph 59:
Further general restraints in spending and falling school roles have, together, continued to affect primary schools in similar ways to those described in last year's report"?
Is he aware that the report also states:
The number of mixed age classes have increased"?.
This is very important, as the Minister has either inadvertently or deliberately misled the House and the record must be put straight. The report continues:
Where such classes are larger than about 25 in number the children's performance can suffer".
What is the Minister's response to that?

Dr. Boyson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is reading the HMI report. One can make quotations on both sides. I actually said to his hon. Friend that cuts have nothing to do with the increase in mixed age teaching. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will listen to my reply, he may learn something. I said quite clearly that cuts have nothing to do with the increase in mixed age teaching, because if the authorities in whose areas the number of children has declined decide how to reorganise their schools to have economic numbers, single age teaching can continue. That is what I said. If the hon. Gentleman did not understand it the first time, I am delighted that he does now.

Bio-engineering

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with current provision for training technicians for bio-engineering and other advanced subjects.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Shelton): My right hon. Friend attaches great importance to the education and training of technicians and is satisfied that current arrangements are adequate to ensure proper provision.

Mr. Miller: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not a universal opinion that there is an adequate supply of technicians for some of the so-called sunrise industries? Will he give particular attention to the desirability of some communication with the University Grants Committee so that in future grant is related to the training needs of these technicians, especially in view of the cuts in the technical departments of universities such as Aston, which were once colleges of advanced technology?

Mr. Shelton: Mr. Teacher—I apologise, Mr. Speaker. This is the second time that I have said that. I shall pay attention and not do it again.
I understand the concern of my hon. Friend. I said that the education and training are sufficient and that the problem is not in the provision of sufficient training places, because there are enough of them, but in getting sufficient applicants to be educated and trained as technicians. I refer my hon. Friend to the Royal Society's report on "Biotechnology and Education" in 1981, which stated that there was little cause for concern about the availability of places, but considerable cause for concern about getting enough good applicants.

Mr. Carter-Jones: If the Minister accepts the value of bio-engineering, why does he support cuts in the training of bioengineers? Is he aware that rehabilitation for the elderly and disabled is very important, yet he has cut back such training at Aston, Salford and Bradford?

Mr. Shelton: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman also considers the position in polytechnics, which also undertake such training. I repeat that there is no shortage of training and education places, but we want more good applicants to apply to be educated and trained.

Mr. Whitehead: Why are people being trained as bio-engineering technicians when such technician posts are being frozen or phased out in universities that are acknowledged to be at the forefront of research in this sphere? What incentive is there for them when the Government's policy is to phase out the posts to which they might aspire?

Mr. Shelton: There is competition from industry, which is also looking for technicians to train. That is why insufficient people are coming forward to fill the available places in the colleges and universities.

Education Standards (Cockcroft Report)

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in implementing those recommendations of the Cockcroft report for which he is responsible.

Sir Keith Joseph: The Department will be taking early action on the recommendation that a study should be

commissioned into ways of providing evidence of achievement for lower-attaining pupils, perhaps by means of graduated tests. We are considering the other recommendations directed to us.

Mr. Mills: I thank my right hon. Friend for the reply, which is overdue as it was the subject of a question for written answer in March. Will my right hon. Friend further consider the need to implement the proposals for better arithemitical standards for younger people in the primary schools? I am sure that he is aware that higher standards have been called for by engineering employers in Coventry, Birmingham and, indeed, throughout the nation.

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, Sir. The recommendations of the Cockcroft committee are all of great value and we consider the report to be singularly constructive. I am hoping to consider what can be done in the near future about the other recommendations directed to us. Rather to the surprise of many people, the Cockcroft committee found, after unprecedented research, that on the whole employers are not too disatisfied with mathematical skills.

Mr. McNally: Is it not a fact that Cockcroft said that in service training was the key to the success of his recommendations? Is the Secretary of State willing to put his weight behind an expansion of in-service training in mathematics?

Sir Keith Joseph: The Cockcroft report did emphasise in-service training. The decision on the amount of resources to devote to in-service training is for local education authorities; my weight is behind an increase in such training.

Mr. Madel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is up to the local education authorities to remind mathematics teachers of the need to attend these excellent in-service training courses so that standards are constantly improved?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes. I commend the action of the members of the Cockcroft committee in taking their recommendations and their analysis widely round the country.

Open University (Retraining Courses)

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what subjects will be covered under the proposed Open University PICKUP scheme of special courses for the retraining of people in mid-career.

Mr. William Shelton: The Department has asked the Open University to earmark £1 million of its 1982 recurrent funds for the development of suitable courses for PICKUP—the new professional industrial and commercial updating initiative. The details are currently being worked out, according to need and likely demand.

Mr. Durant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us welcome that innovation? Is he further aware that, whatever the state of the economy, many people will have to change their careers many times in future? Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Open University to bring in new technologies—microcircuitry, and so on—because they are important to the country's future?

Mr. Shelton: I welcome my hon. Friend's support. He is right. It is unrealistic to expect education to last someone for 50 years of working life with current technological change. I shall convey his views to the Open University.

Mr. Greenway: My hen. Friend will know that I am a member of the council of the Open University. Will my hon. Friend underline the excellence of that university in this sphere, as in so many others.

Mr. Shelton: I do so with great pleasure.

Teachers (Unemployment)

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the present number of qualified teachers registered as unemployed.

Dr. Boyson: The total number of people in England registered with the Department of Employment as unemployed and seeking work as teachers in schools in March 1982 was 15,893.

Mr. Marks: When there was a shortage of teachers the Ministry organised a quota system to stop the best authorities from getting more than their fair share. In view of the obvious disquiet in the Minister's Department about the cuts made by some authorities, will he use his powers to enforce proper staffing ratios on the worst authorities?

Dr. Boyson: I am not convinced that local authorities will welcome the statement made by the hon. Member. Local authorities, whether Labour or Conservative controlled, welcome their freedom to run local schools in their own way. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said earlier. The pupil-teacher ratio this year is the lowest that we have ever had.

Mr. Marks: On average.

Dr. Boyson: Yes, on average, but that is what these figures usually are. Local authorities are not being penalised and there would have been more unemployment had we increased the pupil-teacher ratio.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that not all teachers who have qualified are necessarily making the best contribution to society by continuing in teaching? Does he further agree that falling rolls give us the opportunity to weed out weak teachers?

Dr. Boyson: My right hon. Friend and I have said that now that we have a surplus of teachers, authorities can be much more selective in recruitment. The Economist said last week:
Britain's teaching stock is burdened by a generation of underachievers who rode into the schools in the flood-tide of the great expansion of the 1960s.
It is up to local authorities when making appointments to make sure that the teachers are of high quality.

Mr. Kinnock: Since we have this vast number of unemployed trained teachers, and in the wake of the welcome, but reluctantly made, statement of the Secretary of State for Employment yesterday on the youth training scheme, is the Under-Secretary or the Secretary of State consulting the Department of Employment or the Manpower Services Commission to ensure that the educational content of the youth training scheme is enriched? Will the Minister ensure that jobs are given to these skilled teachers in the training and education of the youngsters who will now be provided for more adequately, thanks to the pressure of the trade unions?

Dr. Boyson: There is continued discussion between the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Employment, and others, regarding the 16 to 18-year-olds and on retraining. The subject of teacher surplus has often occurred, because it is a numbers game. Teachers were recruited irrespective of their subject. We must ensure in the future that teachers' subjects are matched to the requirement of the schools.

International Youth Exchanges

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions have been held by his Department concerning the rationalisation of the administration of international youth exchanges; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Shelton: The Department is in close touch with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this. I understand that consideration is being given to commissioning an independent study of the bodies concerned. A final decision will be taken very shortly.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend agree that although some advantage may be gained from adminis-trative rationalisation, that something would most certainly be lost if organisations such as the Commonwealth Youth Exchange Council were wholly swallowed up? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to have a separate organisation to promote Commonwealth youth exchange, just as it is important that there should be a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association as distinct from the IPU.

Mr. Shelton: I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in the Commonwealth Youth Exchange Council. He was for a while chairman of that organisation. It has done valuable work, and I am aware of its importance. I cannot believe that rationalisation will end its independence.

Student Grants

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce the level of student grants for the coming year.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Waldegrave): I understand that the hon. Member is referring to the academic year 1983–84. My right hon. Friend would normally expect to announce the level of student grants around the turn of the year.

Mr. Whitehead: Did the Minister have the opportunity to meet the deputation from the National Union of Students that lobbied the House and met many of his hon. Friends last month? Has he had an opportunity to study its contention that students are now much worse off and are experiencing serious financial hardship because of the reduction in their grants, the phasing out of many discretionary awards and the increase in hall charges? Will the Minister give his Department's calculation of the extent to which, under the 1982–83 figures, students will be worse off in real terms? What can be done to rectify that in the following year?

Mr. Waldegrave: We are in no doubt that the grant settlement for 1982–83 puts students under pressure. The


rate of award for London students is rather better, compared with the past, than for other students, but we are well aware of the pressures.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, for example, it has been necessary for the University of Edinburgh to increase its accommodation charges by 10 per cent., whereas the student grant is to be increased by only 4 per cent? To what extent will that leeway be made up in the following year?

Mr. Waldegrave: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot give any commitments for future years. Many universities have managed to keep their increases in hall fees to within 4 per cent. I know that some, like Edinburgh, have had to go higher.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is there any reason why the Department cannot announce in advance the principles on which it will base the increase in student grants each year?

Mr. Waldegrave: The fundamental principle is how much money is available.

Secondary Education (Liverpool)

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the proposed reorganisation of secondary education in Liverpool which has been submitted to him.

Sir Keith Joseph: I have before me proposals for the reorganisation of Roman Catholic secondary education in the city of Liverpool and for the closure of Fairfield, Lawrence and Edge Hill county secondary schools. I am considering them carefully in the light of all relevant factors and will announce my decisions as quickly as I can.

Mr. Parry: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the grave concern over the possible closure of the St. Martin's Roman Catholic secondary school in the Toxteth area and also of the grave and massive concern over the proposed closure of the Croxteth comprehensive school. Will he look carefully at both those cases before he makes a final decision?

Sir Keith Joseph: In all cases my colleagues and I look carefully at the reasons for the proposals and at the objections, as well as the education and social conditions. I undertake that that will be done in future, as it has been done in the past. As to Croxteth, I have already told the House that today I have written to a councillor concerned, and I am releasing the letter to Members of Parliament in the area and to the press.

Mr. Alton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that all three single-sex schools in Edge Hill constituency will close if the present proposals go through? It is particularly important that a single-sex alternative is available somewhere in the inner city, particularly in view of the needs of the Asian community, which particularly likes its young girls to attend single-sex schools.

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, and I am also aware that, along with one of our honourable colleagues, the hon. Gentleman led a deputation to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

School Curriculum (Politics)

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if any consideration has been given to including the study of politics within the framework for the school curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Boyson: Political facts and values cannot and should not be excluded from parts of the school curriculum, such as history, geography or indeed English literature. But in this area of the curriculum, as in all others, what is offered must be education, not indoctrination.

Mr. Greenway: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply, indicating that it is inevitable that there will be political education in schools. Does he agree that the teaching profession has the integrity to achieve a balance in this area on most occasions? However, is he aware of a new subject that is creeping in under the guise of political education called "peace studies", which is causing immense concern to parents because in some areas it is unadulterated unilateralism and pacifism? Will he do something about it?

Dr. Boyson: I share my hon. Friend's belief that the vast majority of teachers are professionals who go into the classroom to teach as fairly as possible without any doctrine. At the same time, I share his concern about the growth of peace—or, rather, appeasement—studies, because that is basically what they are. Purely by accident I have with me the syllabus from Avon, which suggests that "violent systems" include:
capitalism, Communism, Fascism, imperialism, totalitarian-ism, institutional injustice".
There is no mention of Socialism and the problems that that causes, or even of nationalism.

Mrs. Renée Short: Notwithstanding the Minister's reply, does he not agree that as young people are able to vote, many of them before they leave school, it is high time that we had a properly structured course in politics? I am not talking about party political indoctrination. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that young people need to know how the country is governed, how the Government works, what Parliament's responsibilities are and what their duties as citizens are?

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Lady obviously feels strongly about this matter. I always thought that in the teaching of history one indicated the growth of democracy in Britain, both nationally and locally. That was part of the history syllabus that was taught in schools with which I was connected. Similarly, there are subjects, such as British constitution and economics. However, there should not be a separate subject concerned simply with advocating unilateral disarmament in Britain.

Mr. Beith: Is it not the case that for years teachers have, with various subjects, sought to give children an understanding of how our political system works? Should we not in a democracy be at least as concerned as authoritarian countries to pass on the values upon which our system depends?

Dr. Boyson: It was because of the Government's belief in a genuine participatory democracy that we passed the Education Act 1980, which gave parents a choice of schools. That is what real participation means. The Act also introduced an appeals system. I welcome the fact that I have the hon. Gentleman's support in this regard.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is there not a danger of the development of a wholly bizarre approach to political education, including such things as peace studies, unless there is a proper, thoughtful approach to political education with the help of such bodies as the Hansard Society?

Dr. Boyson: I welcome my hon. Friend's sound and fair comments. I again quote from the Avon syllabus, which in the section headed "Bookstalls and relevant literature" states:
Books, leaflets, posters and any available teaching materials related to the field of peace education will be on sale. In addition, it is hoped to stock appropriate badges, car stickers, postcards, envelope labels and the like".
That would make schools look like a Labour Party rally in Trafalgar Square on a wet Sunday afternoon.

Mr. Kinnock: When the hon. Gentleman taught the history of democracy in Britain I hope that he was vigilant in his accuracy and described it as a series of historic defeats for Toryism. If the hon. Gentleman has so much confidence in the teaching profession, why does he incessantly go up and down the country seeking to convey the impression that there is a large number of irresponsible teachers seeking to indoctrinate our children—a practice which we would strongly deplore? Why does the hon. Gentleman seem to give the impression that he thinks politics, like sex, is best learnt on street corners?

Dr. Boyson: I take only one of the variety of points raised by the hon. Gentleman—the teaching profession. Earlier, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), I said that the vast majority of teachers were professionals. This question has been raised not just by the members of the Conservative Party but by others, because of parental and teacher concern about what is going on in many of our schools, so that we do not have indoctrination but rather the proper teaching of democracy, which both the hon. Gentleman and I want.

Student Unions

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is monitoring the new arrangements for the financing of student unions.

Mr. Waldegrave: After the new arrangements have been in force for some time my right hon. Friend will, of course, wish to consider whether they have worked sensibly.

Mr. Brown: I acknowledge the progress that has been made by my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science. Does he not accept that many students object violently to the fact that vast sums of money are paid on their behalf by the ratepayers, over which they have absolutely no control? Following the question by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), does my hon. Friend not accept that students would be much better off if they were allowed to spend the money that is now spent for them by irresponsible student unions?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend may not be aware that student union subscriptions have been abolished and that the ratepayer is no longer directly involved. The funds are part and parcel of the recurrent funds of the institutions concerned. It is up to the responsible students involved,

who are in the majority, to see that the funds entrusted to student unions are properly spent. If they are not, there is legal recourse.

University Grants Committee

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to meet the University Grants Committee to discuss the financing of universities.

Sir Keith Joseph: I last met the University Grants Committee on 29 April. I have at present no plans for a further meeting, but have frequent meetings with the committee's chairman.

Mr. Canavan: Although we are grateful for small mercies in that the UGC recently allocated an additional 40 student places to Stirling university, will the Secretary of State tell the UGC, before it visits Stirling in October, that it can have an additional allocation of Government grant specifically to help universities, such as Stirling, that are most critically threatened? If the Government can find £1,000 million to send a task force to the Falkland Islands, why cannot they spend that amount on a task force to educate the thousands of young people who are queuing up for university places?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman deliberately misunderstands the function of the UGC. It is not for Ministers to tell the UGC how to allocate the taxpayers' money given to it. It is for the UGC precisely to distribute the funds between the universities and departments, without political interference.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman or representatives of the University Grants Committee, will he discuss the needs of industry and indicate to them that it is probably better to maintain schools and courses in textile technology, serving the second largest employer in this country, than to have at universities and other institutes of higher education dozens of lecturers who are specialists in peace studies?

Sir Keith Joseph: I hope my hon. Friend is aware that there is also polytechnic provision, which is quite large in this area, to be taken into account. I am sure that the chairman of the UGC and his colleagues will read my hon. Friend's observations.

Mr. Whitehead: When the Secretary of State gets around to seeing the University Grants Committee, will he take with him in his back pocket the Merrison and Rothschild reports? The Merrison report says that university research has been seriously impaired by cuts in Government spending while the Rothschild report, in language more elegant than I can muster, says that the Government's witch hunt against the social sciences is nonsense. Will the right hon. Gentleman believe his own reports when he looks again at Government spending on universities?

Sir Keith Joseph: I need no persuasion to take the dual funding of science in universities extremely seriously, as, I know, do the research councils and the UGC.

Pupils (Job Guidance)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will sponsor a scheme in


schools to give additional guidance to pupils in their final year of secondary education in preparation for job-seeking and careers.

Mr. William Shelton: The Government recognise and have already drawn to the attention of schools in a number of ways the need for more and better careers guidance. However, this must be a matter for local education authorities and I would urge them to give it the importance that it deserves.

Mr. Dykes: With the reinforcement and expansion of the youth training scheme announced yesterday, is it not essential to make sure that the balance is right by providing for careers and training advisers and masters in all secondary schools? Will my hon. Friend look into this matter carefully?

Mr. Shelton: Yes. My hon. Friend is right. I can reassure him by saying that the MSC has already increased funding for careers officers. Although the careers teacher service is a matter, as I have said, for local education authorities, we made it a central theme in our school curriculum document published last year.

Mr. Cryer: Is it not a hollow mockery to talk about careers guidance for schoolchildren when almost a quarter of a million of them are facing the dole queue? The real cause is the savage economic policy of the Government. When will the Government abandon their plethora of tinsel policies for job creation and actually try to encourage people to stay on at school by providing an educational maintenance allowance such as has been pressed on them for a number of years?

Mr. Shelton: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. He is suggesting, if I understand him rightly, that youngsters should not be educated and guided at this time because there might not be a job waiting for them. That is nonsense. When the upturn comes, which will happen shortly, it is always in the skill areas that there are bottlenecks.

Mr. Thornton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just in the final year of secondary education but in earlier years that pupils need guidance? Should not every encouragement be given to schools to start encouraging the expansion of careers guidance from 12-plus onwards?

Mr. Shelton: My hon. Friend is right. I had a meeting with the National Association of Careers and Guidance Teachers the other day, when the same point was made. I think it is generally agreed that we are talking about the fourth and fifth years onwards.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister endeavour to persuade his colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Security to review their recent mean-minded decision that young people going on pre-vocational courses starting in September will be deprived of supplementary benefit for three months, and so enable them to go on those courses and honour the sort of undertakings that he talks about?

Mr. Shelton: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the recent revision in the 21-hours rule, I would say that this is generally welcomed. If he is referring to the vocational courses whereby one cannot get supplementary benefit for three months, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Overseas Students

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has studied the proposals of the Overseas Students Trust about future policy on overseas students, a copy of which has been sent to him.

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister accept the assertion in the report that the line between home and overseas students is drawn in the wrong place, particularly in the light of the fact that students from British dependencies, including the Falkland Islands, must pay many times more than students from overseas dependencies of other countries in Europe?

Mr. Waldegrave: I welcome the report as a practical and hard-headed document with a number of good ideas in it. Ministers are now looking at it. They will have to look, in particular, at the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. There are large expenditure implications involved with all dependent territories.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of overseas student places must be rationed by price or by number? Are the Government willing to examine the possibility of some flexibility in moving the boundaries of both?

Mr. Waldegrave: Ministers are looking at all the subject matter covered by the Overseas Students Trust report. I do not think that we want to experiment with quotas as the Labour Government did. This was shown to be inequitable and impractical.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. Later this afternoon I shall depart for New York to attend the United Nations second special session on disarmament.

Mr. Lawrence: Since I have had the good fortune to draw Question No. 1 today, may I take this happy opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend if she will convey to Her Majesty the Queen and the Prince and Princess of Wales our feeling of joy and the warm congratulations of the whole House on the birth of the heir apparent?

Mr. William Hamilton: No.

Mr. Cryer: You grovelling sycophant.

The Prime Minister: With great pleasure. I believe that the whole nation shares in the happiness of the Prince and Princess of Wales, the happiness of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh and also of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. I understand that we shall have an opportunity to say so, possibly on Thursday.

Dr. Owen: Will the Prime Minister, in view of the serious fighting between Syria and Israel that is reported today, seek the opportunity when she sees President


Reagan to make the offer that Britain will play a part in any United Nations peacekeeping role in the Lebanon, particularly if the United States could also be persuaded to play a part?

The Prime Minister: I shall hope and expect to discuss this subject with the President when I see him tomorrow. I do not think, at the moment, that I could make the offer that Britain would play a part in a peacekeeping role in the Lebanon. We are already playing a part in the multinational force in Sinai. It would be unwise to make further promises in view of our already extended commitment.

Mr. Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when this country has regained its pride and confidence, it is sad that certain unions are calling out their members on crippling strikes that can only undermine the national recovery?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I have never supported any strikes and I hope that even at this late hour —

Mr. Lofthouse: Poland?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I do not believe that people who go on strike in this country have a legitimate cause. Throughout the period of the Labour Government and this one, I have never supported any strikes in this country. I hope that, even at this late hour, those who are contemplating going on strike will realise that those they are harming are their fellow citizens.

Mr. Foot: May I join in offering the good wishes which the right hon. Lady offered on behalf, I am sure, of the whole House to the Royal Family on the news yesterday? I am glad that the House will have the opportunity to discuss the matter.
May I ask the right hon. Lady whether she has had a chance to study the extremely serious unemployment figures that are published today? They are the most serious domestic news for the nation. Is it not a fact that these seasonally adjusted figures show that we are back to the worst trend of last year— [Interruption.] No, it is not only school leavers. It is the seasonally adjusted figure. Can the right hon. Lady tell us what is the prospect for the future that she sees with these figures?

The Prime Minister: The unemployment figures are unwelcome. We have a number of school leavers in this month's figures. If the right hon. Gentleman studies the international figures on a quarterly basis he will see that a number of countries in Europe, quarter by quarter, also experienced an unusually greater increase in unemploy-ment. We believe that in this country this was probably due to the increase in interest rates that occurred, partly because of the exchange rate, at the end of last autumn. The forward indicators are now giving hope for better things and for a continuing of economic recovery.

Mr. Foot: Does not the right hon. Lady think that part of the reason for these extremely serious unemployment figures, and the increase, is the fall in industrial production and the fall in house building and in other forms of activity? I know that the right hon. Lady always refuses to make prophecies on this matter, but can she tell us on what assumptions the Government are acting in deciding how long unemployment will continue at this rate?

The Prime Minister: Any assumptions that we have made have already been published, not so much as assumptions, but as working practices for those who have to calculate any benefits that are due. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures he will find that economic activity is above the levels of last spring. Industrial and manufacturing output is up 2 per cent. from spring 1981 and the prospect is for resumed and continued recovery. This is supported by almost all independent assessment. The cyclical indicators have, for a while, suggested—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked me, and I naturally expect to do him the courtesy of answering his question. The cyclical indicators have for a while suggested that there would be a plateau in the first half of 1982. They have also implied a subsequent continuation in the recovery.

Disarmament

Mr. Renton: asked the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on the United Nations special session on disarmament.

The Prime Minister: A number of Heads of Governments and Foreign Ministers have already addressed the special session. Because of developments in the Falklands, I postponed my own address and shall now be speaking tomorrow. I shall reaffirm the importance that we in Britain attach to maintaining international security and our determination to press ahead with the search for realistic, balanced and verifiable arms control agreements.

Mr. Renton: The House will wish my right hon. Friend well on her important visit. Does she agree that many thousands of Britons who would never accept unilateral disarmament would dearly love to see Britain taking an initiative in suggesting a practical programme for multilateral disarmament that is, as my right hon. Friend has just said, verifiable and has agreed dates for implementation? Will the Prime Minister, with her usual courage, make that message plain at the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: I shall endeavour to do so, and also to point out that the purpose of disarmament is not to undermine security but to enable it to take place at a lower cost to all of the nations that at the moment have considerable armouries. I agree with my hon. Friend that unilateral disarmament would open one up to attack from strong nations. Therefore, we must have multilateral disarmament, which must be verifiable.
I confess that I am a little suspicious about timetables. The Vienna talks on mutual and balanced force reductions have already taken nine years, but there are fresh proposals now being made in those talks. I hope that that will give them an impetus towards success, which they have so far lacked.

Mr. David Steel: While welcoming the Prime Minister's decision to address this important conference, may I ask her whether she will have anything to say on conventional disarmament as well as nuclear disarma-ment? Is she aware that yesterday's opening of the defence equipment exhibition at Aldershot should remind us that among our previous good customers there was Argentina?

The Prime Minister: Yes, conventional disarmament is every bit as important as nuclear disarmament, particularly in view of the imbalance of conventional weapons across the NATO line, which is in favour of the


Warsaw Pact. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have pursued a policy, as have successive Governments, of selling arms to countries abroad, but each order is viewed on its merits. The right hon. Gentleman could say that we did not always make the right decisions. However, if we pulled out of selling armaments, nations would go to the Soviet Union for their arms.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Following that question, is it right for the Prime Minister in the same week to address the disarmament conference and to invite to this exhibition and sale of our latest and most sophisticated weapons representatives of nearly every Fascist dictatorship in Latin America, the Middle East and the Far East? Is not that hypocrisy?

The Prime Minister: No. Weakness has been the cause of as many wars as military strength. If one looks at history, one sees that arms races have not necessarily led to wars—

Mr. Allaun: Yes, always.

The Prime Minister: Certainly not. The hon. Gentleman is wrong historically. What tends to lead to war is rapid rearmament on the part of a tyrant and unilateral disarmament on the part of a victim.

Mr. Churchill: Can my right hon. Friend reaffirm Britain's, and her, firm commitment to the concept of multilateral disarmament, and will she further make it clear that unilateral disarmament represents the principal threat to achieving a negotiated multilateral settlement, as well as potentially paving the way to war?

The Prime Minister: Yes. Our object is to secure peace with freedom and justice. Unilateral disarmament would mean that we were not prepared to defend freedom and justice. Multilateral disarmament means that we are prepared to secure them and that we hope, through verifiable measures, to secure them at less cost than at present.

Mr. Foot: Does the appalling answer that the right hon. Lady gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) mean that she does not mind how many deadly weapons she sells to the Galtieris of the future?

The Prime Minister: No, and that is a ridiculous question from a right hon. Gentleman who was a member of the Government who signed the contracts to sell the destroyers to Argentina.

Mr. Foot: As the right hon. Lady says that it is a ridiculous question to ask how many arms she sells to the Galtieris, will she publish the details of how many other Fascist countries she is selling arms to?

The Prime Minister: Why will the right hon. Gentleman not plead guilty? It was his Government who signed the contracts to sell the destroyers to Argentina, those very destroyers that have been used against us. Why will he not plead guilty when he knows that his Government pursued exactly the same policy as ours? We look at each order on its merits.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady look up the facts before she tries to tell such tales to the country? We stopped the sale of arms to El Salvador, to Chile, to South Africa and to Argentina. The right hon. Lady's Government have started the sale of arms to all those countries. When will she stop this appalling traffic, in arms?

The Prime Minister: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that it was a Labour Government who signed the contracts for the sale of those destroyers? Does he?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Warren: Will my right hon. Friend further pursue this point in any inquiry made into the Falklands operation and ensure that evidence is obtained of the political decisions taken by the Labour Government which affected the capability of our defence forces in the Falklands operation?

The Prime Minister: I have already written to the Leader of the Opposition and to the leaders of the Liberal and Social Democratic Parties—

Mr. Foulkes: Cover-up.

Mr. Skinner: Whitewash.

The Prime Minister: —about possible terms of reference for an inquiry. May I make it perfectly clear that I think that the evidence running up to the invasion of the Falklands must be judged against the decisions previously taken both on defence and on previous assessments of intelligence. I think that we owe it—

Mr. Winnick: Whitewash.

The Prime Minister: —to those Ministers who have resigned and to those who have served the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence to have a thorough inquiry, and I am quite certain that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor hon. Gentlemen would wish to hide anything.

Foreign Ministers Meeting (Luxembourg)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Francis Pym): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the visit which I paid to Luxembourg on 20 and 21 June, during which I attended a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Ten and the first part of the Foreign Affairs Council, which continues today, and on which there will be a report to the House.
At my request there was, first, a discussion of the Community's decision-making procedures. I left our partners in no doubt about the British Government's position that where a member State considers that very important interests are at stake discussions must be continued until unanimous agreement is reached, and that Community business should continue to be governed by this principle, in accordance with the Luxembourg compromise. This position was supported unreservedly by two member States and by two others with minor qualifications.
The position is, therefore, that five member States support the principle that decisions must be deferred where a member State considers that its major national interests are at stake. It was not to be expected that the five members which declined to endorse this principle in 1966 would do so now, but they made it clear that they were not seeking to reopen the Luxembourg compromise. The Community's practice since 1966 was based on an agreement to disagree, and this remains the position.
In view of what happened at the Agriculture Council on 18 May, I would obviously have preferred a clear-cut result. Although there is now a better understanding in the Community of our position and of the principles involved, we may have to return to the subject. The crucial point is what will happen in practice when our very important national interests are at stake. We shall continue to defend them on the basis we have made clear to our partners.
In addition to the discussion on majority voting, we also had a brief discussion on the Genscher-Colombo proposals. No conclusions were reached, but it was agreed that work on the proposals would continue.
The Foreign Ministers agreed that the arms embargoes on Argentina, imposed nationally by member States, would remain in force for the time being. They decided that the European Community's ban on Argentine imports should be lifted as from 22 June in the expectation that there would be no further acts of force in the South Atlantic. They also agreed that, should this not be the case, a new situation would arise to which the Ten would be obliged to react immediately. Normal commercial relations between Argentina and the member States of the European Community depend, therefore, on a lasting cessation of hostilities in the south Atlantic.
Foreign Ministers also discussed the increasingly serious situation in the Lebanon. They expressed their determination to continue humanitarian aid, both nationally and in the Community framework. The Community decided not to proceed at this stage with the signature of the second Financial Protocol with Israel.
On 21 June, I had a meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister. Sr. Perez-Llorca informed me that the Spanish

Government wished to postpone the arrangements by which the Lisbon statement of 10 April 1980 would have been implemented on 25 June 1982 with a meeting between us in Portugal and the opening that day of the Gibraltar border.
Her Majesty's Government were fully prepared to go ahead, and I much regret this further postponement. Nevertheless, I agreed with the Spanish Foreign Minister that we were both determined to keep alive the process envisaged in the Lisbon agreement; that we would remain in touch on the matter personally and through diplomatic channels; and that the date for a new meeting would be fixed in due course. The governor of Gibraltar will be returning to London for consultations tomorrow, and I hope to have talks with Sir Joshua Hassan and Mr. Isola in the near future.

Mr. Eric S. Hefter: Is it not clear that the Foreign Secretary has come back from Luxembourg with little to offer the country, and that his statement today cannot satisfy anyone? Is he aware that his understanding concerning the Luxembourg compromise veto offers no real guarantees, and that we cannot guarantee that in future our EEC partners will not carry out majority voting as they did on 18 May? All that we have is a continuation of the agreement to disagree, instead of the clear commitment to the Luxembourg compromise that we asked for.
On sanctions against Argentina, have not our EEC partners acted—in my view—with indecent haste? Is it not clear that the lifting of the sanctions will make a final ceasefire and settlement more difficult? Also, what guarantees are there that no more Exocets, Mirages or other weapons will find their way to Argentina, especially as, I understand, the final statement agreed said nothing about arms sales? In fact, the right hon. Gentleman said in his statement that the ban will continue for the time being. What does that mean in practice?
On the Lebanon, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the provisions of United Nations resolution 512 are being carried out? What truth is there in the allegation that medical and other supplies for United Nations agencies are not being allowed through by the Israelis?
On Gibraltar, does this make any difference whatever to the Government's attitude to Spain joining the EEC partnership? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will clarify that matter.
I am sure that the whole House is glad—certainly the official Opposition are—that the Genscher-Colombo so-called European Act got nowhere, and that it has been put on ice. May we have an assurance that it will remain on ice, because I did not like the reference suggesting that it would be opened again?
Lastly, is it not clear that our partners in the EEC are not to be completely relied upon? Can we, therefore, be assured that when the Prime Minister meets the Heads of State of the EEC later this month she will press for a real commitment on the Luxembourg compromise that it should be in the form of a written agreement, and that if Britain's interests are not secured the Government will stop merely using words and will proceed to positive action?

Mr. Pym: As I made clear in my statement, obviously I would have preferred a clear-cut outcome. However, that is not to be had at the moment. In 1966, five of the partners


did not want to go along with the arrangement of protecting important national interests. France was in that position at that time. The position today, after the talks that I had this weekend, is that five countries support that view. That gives one ground for hope and expectation that the member States will continue to take their decisions as they did up to 18 May. There cannot be any certainty about that, and I accept that, but, as I said in my statement, if it is necessary we shall have to return to the matter. Our position has been made quite clear, and we shall protect our national interests on the basis that I made quite clear.
It will be some time before agreement on the Genscher-Colombo proposals is achieved, if, indeed, it is. That remains an open question.
There was a long discussion about sanctions against Argentina. Two views were argued. First, it was argued that sanctions should remain. The alternative, which was eventually agreed, was that sanctions should be lifted subject to the cessation of hostilities continuing. Some member countries believed that such a measure would deter Argentina from taking any military action. That is a legitimate point of view. The decision to react immediately if force was used again by Argentina is acceptable and right.
I regret that progress cannot be made on the question of Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar would have liked the frontier to be opened and the whole Lisbon process to have been started. As that would be almost certain to end in failure, and in view of the request made by the Spanish Government, it was right not to go ahead.
Spain is still keen to join the European Community. It was present in Luxembourg for that purpose. The Foreign Minister realises that if Spain were to join it would be inconceivable that the frontier should remain closed. I am pretty confident that the frontier will be opened before Spain joins. I hope that we can work towards the attainment of that objective.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In order to be fair to those hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate on the Middle East, questions on this matter will not go beyond 4 o'clock.

Mr. J. Grimond: Am I right in thinking that the Community will automatically reimpose sanctions on Argentina if hostilities continue? If that is so, is that not a perfectly satisfactory outcome of the discussions?
Was anything more said about Lebanon? Was the American request that Israel should withdraw from Lebanon discussed? If so, was it supported? Were there any suggestions as to what should happen in the Lebanon, which has clearly been reduced to an appalling state by the war? What help can Europe give to that country?

Mr. Pym: The Ten considered whether sanctions should be automatically reimposed. It was decided to meet immediately when and if force was used again by Argentina in the South Atlantic to consider what to do, with the clear and positive intention to take action.
We spent a long time discussing circumstances in the Middle East. We discussed the whole matter of withdrawal and the future of the Palestinians. We shall have a debate later this evening on that important topic. A lot of time was spent on the matter and withdrawal was urged.
On 9 June the Ten made a strong statement about the war. On 14 June a message was sent to Israel asking it to

clarify its position. The President of the Community made that public yesterday. We have not yet had a satisfactory reply to those questions. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that more time was spent on that subject than on any other during the weekend.

Mr. Julian Amery: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of repeating that there can be no question of any change in the status of Gibraltar without the full agreement of its people.
Will my right hon. Friend also give an assurance that now that Spain is a member of NATO there can be no question of Spanish ships, aircraft or men using Gibraltar's NATO facilities until the blockade has been lifted?

Mr. Pym: I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks. The Lisbon agreement states:
For its part the British Government will fully maintain its commitment to honour the freely and democratically expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar as set out in the preamble to the Gibraltar constitution.
I should not like to give a definitive answer to my right hon. Friend's second question. The effect of the postponement on NATO will be minimal. However, I am well aware of my right hon. Friend's points.

Mr. David Stoddart: In the light of recent happenings, has it not yet been borne in on the Foreign Secretary and the Euro-maniacs in the Foreign Office that the EEC is based not on partnership, but on self-interest, taking advantage of other countries in difficulties and gutless expediency? Is this not the time for the Foreign Secretary and the Government to start withdrawing from the institutions of the EEC and to rebuild bridges with the Commonwealth?

Mr. Pym: No, Sir.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed with which he has asked the governor of Gibraltar to come to Britain for discussions.
May I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that when Sir Joshua Hassan and his colleagues come to Britain tomorrow he will arrange for them to see the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss the closure of the Gibraltar dockyard, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to obtain additional aid for the serious economic problems that will now arise as a result of the border's failure to reopen on 25 June?

Mr. Pym: I look forward to seeing Sir Joshua Hassan and his colleagues myself and I shall convey my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. John Roper: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we share his disappointment about the postponement of the meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister and the continued closure of the frontier? We were particularly disappointed that his statement referred to the meeting being arranged "in due course". That suggests that it may be some time before it is possible to arrange such a meeting. Is it not important that it should be arranged at an early date as the matter is important not only for NATO but for Spanish entry into the European Community?

Mr. Pym: It is important that the meeting should be arranged at a propitious date when progress can be made.
It was decided yesterday that to name a day now would be difficult. The wise course would be to wait until the circumstances seem more propitious and then to come to a conclusion. As I said in my statement, we shall keep in close touch with each other.

Mr. Ron Leighton: As the Foreign Secretary has failed to obtain a clear agreement on the national veto, does he accept that the assurances given in the Government's statement issued at the time of the referendum that there should be a national veto and that no decision or tax could be imposed without the agreement of the British Minister have now been abrogated?

Mr. Pym: As I have told the House before, it was an agreement to disagree. A clear-cut commitment cannot be obtained at the moment. However, there certainly is a strong desire to continue with the procedures and practices that were used until 18 May when an event took place that some members of the Community may regret. We must see what progress can be made and how to continue from here. If necessary, I shall return to this matter and raise the subject again with our partners.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems associated with the Luxembourg compromise is that what national interest would justify a veto has not been clearly defined?
Does he also agree that the veto has been used on occasions in circumstances which clearly do not constitute a serious national interest? What does he propose to do about it?

Mr. Pym: It has always been up to each member State to judge whether its important national interest is at stake. It would be extremely difficult to try to define the circumstances in which that might apply. It would be a difficult road to take, and I do not recommend it. Each country should be left to decide for itself.
Will my hon. Friend remind me of his second question?

Mr. Hogg: Has the veto been used on occasions which do not constitute a serious national interest?

Mr. Pym: There have been controversies on a number of occasions about the use of the Luxembourg compromise. We have never challenged its use by anyone because we respect the right of other member States to claim that their important national interests are at stake. Certainly we expected that our claim would be respected, although it was not on 18 May. There has been some controversy, but I hope that, after the experience of last month and the long discussions that we had this weekend, we shall now be able to proceed on the basis that operated before and which worked satisfactorily whatever its demerits on paper.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is it not clear that since 18 May we have had one rebuff after another and the continuous defeat of vital British interests in our relationship with our Community partners?
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how we can welcome a new member of NATO only to have a frontier closed against it? How shall we take into and involve in NATO Spanish armed forces when the frontier with Gibraltar is closed and military secrets are supposedly to be shared?

Mr. Pym: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about events since 18 May.
NATO will be strengthened by Spain and it is entirely right to welcome that country to it. The hon. Gentleman knows the history to the closure of the frontier and also knows of the desire to reopen it. In addition, he knows the steps that the Government have taken to achieve that. Perhaps he will be wise enough to understand the circumstances immediately applying that make it extremely difficult for the Spaniards to proceed. I am confident that the frontier will be opened in due course and I look forward to that day just as much as he does.

Mr. John Wilkinson: In my right hon. Friend's discussions on the Genscher-Colombo proposals about European union, was there any mention of the evolution of European security policy? My right hon. Friend will be aware that at the General Assembly of the Western European Union the French Foreign Secretary, M. Cheysson, last week reaffirmed his Government's view that Western European Union was the appropriate body for concerting European security policy.

Mr. Pym: Not much progress was made in discussing the plan and it will be proceeded with later.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: What pressures did the right hon. Gentleman and his European colleagues consider could be applied to Israel to make it abandon its inhumane obstructionism over the availability of international medical and relief supplies which could alleviate the desperate need in Southern Lebanon? When does the EEC intend to consider imposing a sanction against Israel because of its genocidal policies in the Lebanon—

Mr. Neville Sandelson: Do not talk rubbish.

Mr. Faulds: —by the introduction of the abrogation of its financial and trade agreements with Israel?

Mr. Sandelson: Stop play acting.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What comment can be made about some silly loon in the House who on such a serious issue, makes that sort of lunatic, juvenile comment?

Mr. Sandelson: The hon. Gentleman is not a serious person.

Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman never had a principle to abandon.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There has been more than one juvenile exhibition this afternoon.

Mr. Pym: Perhaps I should answer the question. Humanitarian aid is being brought to bear both nationally and on a collective Community basis. We have applied direct pressure to Israel. Pressure has been applied both individually and collectively, as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). In addition, we have been in close touch with the United States of America, because its influence is infinitely greater than that of any other country. Many countries, including some member States of the Community, have been in touch with the United States of America.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, had it not been for the fact that both sides


of the House expected the Gibraltar blockade to be terminated this year, it would have been very difficult, to say the least, for Spain's entry into NATO to have been ratified? Since uncertainty has proved over and over again to be the worst enemy of foreign policy, will my right hon. Friend reiterate that it is not only politically inconceivable but legally impossible for a country to join the EEC when it has closed frontiers with another member State?

Mr. Pym: I have publicly said and believe it to be the case that it is inconceivable that a country could join the Community with a frontier with another member State closed. However, Spain's membership of NATO will undoubtedly strengthen the collective defence of the West, and that is one of our major interests.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has it been brought to the right hon. Gentleman's attention that in response yesterday to question No. 16 the Minister for Trade promised that the Government would look at the whole system of end user certificates? Does he realise that, whatever he may have said about arms embargoes in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), they are a sham if the system of end user certificates is not carried out to the letter? Do his colleagues, particularly his French colleagues, understand that Aerospatiale Dassault is still boasting about the sale of its wares to Venezuela, Peru and Ecuador, as well as to other countries? Unless we are sure that end user certificates are honoured, it is tanamount to supplying the most sophisticated weapons to the Argentine.

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point. There is no way in which we can be certain about the matter. In recent weeks we have been particularly concerned about the ultimate destination of certain weapons and the Community — which certainly includes France—could not have been more helpful, taken more trouble, or made more effort to ensure that a despatch of arms did not go beyond its destination. Many steps were taken to try to ensure that that was so—

Mr. Dalyell: Try, but not succeed.

Mr. Pym: There is no certainty, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Many steps were taken. In some cases the nature of those steps was shared with us and we were grateful for the efforts made to achieve the objective that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On the subject of the Luxembourg compromise, although it is gratifying to know that five members of the Community are agreed that the supreme national interest veto must apply, what are those five doing to ensure that their view will stick? Since the Argentine still threatens—if necessary, by force—to take the territory of a member country of the EEC, what arrangements are the other countries making to prolong the arms embargo until the Argentine has given up its intentions and what arrangements are being made in the meantime to enforce the embargo on arms sales to the Argentine?

Mr. Pym: In 1966, only one country out of the Six wanted that safeguard for major national interests. That situation endured until last month. Today, five countries wish to ensure that that procedure is adhered to. That shows that there is a general desire—after lengthy discussion—to continue with the procedures and practices that existed before.
The arms embargo is being continued by member countries without any time limit at present. That matter may be raised by member States at later meetings. That is a matter for them to decide and we shall consider it at the time. The condition of the import ban is that the ceasefire should continue in the South Atlantic. At present, there is a de facto ceasefire, which is not enough as far as we are concerned. If a shot was fired, or if there was any aggression or military activity the member States would immediately reconvene and take further measures. They have therefore reached a clear and pretty decisive conclusion.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: As the Camp David accords sadly appear to have died in blood-drenched Lebanon, what discussions have taken place about the possibility of reviving the European initiative pioneered by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, Lord Carrington, which sought to find, through the European Community, a lasting solution to the Palestinian problem?

Mr. Pym: We have much discussion on that subject and we shall debate it later today. To give my hon. Friend a preliminary answer, my view is that the events in recent weeks in Lebanon have made it infinitely more difficult even than before to achieve that lasting settlement. We must give much more thought to it and work much harder at it.

Mr. John Farr: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that when the Gibraltar Minister comes tomorrow discussions will be confined to how the Government can help the dockyard and that there is nothing outstanding to discuss with Spain, apart from the reopening of the frontier?

Mr. Pym: I am prepared to discuss any matter that is raised. I support the Lisbon process, which represents a sensible way forward. However, I am ready to discuss any matter with the governor of Gibraltar.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, despite what he said about the EEC decision immediately to lift sanctions against Argentina and about the Luxembourg compromise, there is a growing feeling in Britain, which I hope that he will take on board, that the United Kingdom's interests are not the interests of the rest of the EEC? Unless we mend some bridges, our future in the Community is undoubtedly in jeopardy.

Mr. Pym: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. It is easy to get into a mode of thought where one believes that everything done by the Community may not be in our interests. The combined interest of the Ten is infinitely greater than it would be if we were not joined in the Community.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend find it odd that hon. Members who have argued that the Treaty of Rome and the common agricultural policy are poisoning our relations with our European allies a:7e doing their best to inject their own venom because, although the Community gave us loyal support at the worst moment of the Falklands crisis, they now take a different view of tactics on sanctions?

Mr. Pym: I note what my hon. Friend says. There is certainly some truth in it.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As my right hon. Friend knows, this House and this country agreed to join the European Community on the basis of the Luxembourg compromise. Will he give a commitment to the nation now that he will take whatever action is necessary to restore the Luxembourg compromise, otherwise we shall have what has recently happened: as Europe has voted, we have paid?
With regard to the Middle East, as we had European sanctions against Argentina because it committed aggression, will we likewise have sanctions against Israel until it withdraws?

Mr. Pym: The Luxembourg compromise was an agreement to disagree, but at the discussions this weekend no one wished to rearrange the compromise. They wished to proceed on the basis of it. We must see whether that works out. If it does not, we shall have a new position and I shall certainly raise the matter again. Now that five member countries wish to protect their vital national interests when they judge that there is a risk to those interests, it seems to give grounds for good hope.
As for the Middle East, we are discussing the possibility of economic measures as suggested by my hon. Friend, but there has been no decision yet.

Mr. Heller: The Foreign Secretary must be aware that his answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is disappointing, to say the least. Surely we cannot rely upon hopes. Will he return to my question which he did not answer? Will the Prime Minister be prepared to raise the matter at the meeting of Heads of State to try to obtain a clear commitment and agreement from the rest of the Community?

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman says that we cannot rely on expectations. The basis of the so-called Luxembourg agreement was a curious arrangement with which five member countries originally disagreed. They do not wish to reopen or to alter the matter. They will not come to a clear commitment such as the hon. Gentleman and I would prefer. That is not available. We must make the best use that we can of the procedures and practices that are available to us. I acknowledged in my statement that I would much rather have had a clear-cut outcome, but we must carry on as we were before. It worked perfectly well under Governments of both parties. If anything similar were done in the future, that would be a serious matter, and I should raise the question again.

Falkland Islands (British Citizenship)

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable citizens of the Falkland Islands to acquire British citizenship.
I do not propose to use the time allotted, because the merits of this Bill are self-evident and will command considerable support both inside and outside the House, as did the principle of the matter when it was discussed during debates on the Bill that became the British Nationality Act 1981. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the principle of allowing citizens of the Falkland Islands to acquire British citizenship if they so desired was debated both in this Chamber and in another place. On both occasions it obtained considerable support but was denied by the Government.
The British Nationality Act gave British citizenship to 1,400 Falkland Islanders who have a grandparent or parent born in Britain. They now have the right of entry, abode and employment in the United Kingdom. However, the Act denied British citizenship to 400 islanders who to all intents and purposes are British but who are not fortunate enough to have a parent or grandparent, but instead a great-grandparent, born in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, they are as British as their more fortunate compatriots who have been designated British citizens.
Every one, not least the Falkland Islanders, is aware that when the British Nationality Act was debated the Home Secretary gave a clear and specific assurance that in desperate times the Islanders would be allowed to enter Britain. He used a phrase that was reiterated many times during the debates and more recently by Foreign Office spokesmen and said that they would be given "every sympathetic consideration".
That may well be the case, but it is not right that Falkland Islanders who are now citizens of British dependent territories and who have no right of entry or abode or to work here, but only the right to leave and enter the Falkland Islands, must rely upon the compassion, good will and the good nature of the Home Secretary or the Government. If it is right to say that to all intents and purposes they have British citizenship and that they will always be allowed to settle or to work here, it is equally right to put that on a regular basis and to enshrine it in law by giving them British citizenship.
We have accepted that. We assembled a massive task force and sent it half way round the world—the much publicised 8,000 miles—at great expense and with considerable loss of life. I endorsed and supported that expedition then, as I do now. As the Prime Minister said, we were fighting for a principle, to demonstrate that aggression does not pay and that no country, be it a dictatorship or a democracy, can take over the territory or subjugate the citizens of another country. However, we were fighting for something more than that, or at least the Prime Minister said that we were. She said constantly that we were fighting to protect British citizens and the British way of life. That is correct, but the British way of life that we fought successfully to protect applies to all 1,800 islanders, not just to the 1,400 who were fortunate to qualify for British citizenship.
It was absurd to deny citizenship to the 400 when the Act was debated. It would be indefensible to deny them today. They are British in their language, heritage,


descent, traditions, way of life and, above all, by choice. It would be churlish now, after all that Britain has experienced on their behalf, to deny them British citizenship in practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. J. W. Rooker, Miss Sheila Wright, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. Ioan Evans, and Mr. David Stoddart.

FALKLAND ISLANDS (BRITISH CITIZENSHIP)

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk accordingly presented a Bill to enable citizens of the Falkland Islands to acquire British citizenship: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 July and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

Northern Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee, Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The remaining proceedings in Committee on the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the following Table:—


TABLE


Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


Clause 3 (remaining proceedings); Clause 4
6.30 pm


Clause 5
9 pm


Remaining proceedings
One hour after midnight

(2) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and on that day—

(a) the proceedings on Consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock; and
(b) the proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after midnight.

(3) Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall riot apply to this Order.

Proceedings on going into Committee

2. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

3. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Order of consideration

4. No Motion shall be moved to change the order in which the Bill is to be considered in Committee or on Consideration.

Dilatory Motions

5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

6.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for three hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of three hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of three hours.

Private business

7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the, conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

8.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—



(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

10. Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

12. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Northern Ireland Bill.

The debate is concerned with the allocation of time to the Northern Ireland Bill. Recently, however, interest has been expressed in the wider aspects of timetabling. I refer particularly to the speeches in support of a general timetable for all contentious Bills by my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and by other hon. Members during the timetable debate on the Employment Bill on 20 April. In addition, this matter has received the attention of an Early-Day Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Rochdale and others, which has attracted the support of 23 right hon. and hon. Members.

This is not, of course, the occasion for debating the merits of general timetabling. However, the Northern Ireland Bill reveals an element and direction of opposition which makes pre-ordained timetabling through the Government and the conventional Opposition generally inappropriate. I do not need to argue that point. The Northern Ireland Bill will therefore add a new dimension and a new experience to such discussions on general timetabling as might take place at a later date.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is there a difference between Bills, however contentious, such as the Employment Bill, and constitutional issues, such as the Northern Ireland Bill and the Scotland and Wales Bills?

Mr. Biffen: It is precisely on that point that future debate will be focussed, in the light of the experience that we have had on the Northern Ireland Bill. That was my point. I was not seeking to lay down deductions of my own, but merely to point out to the House that this was a new factor in our deliberations.
I do not believe that anyone can reasonably contend that the time allocated to the Northern Ireland Bill has either been ungenerous or has not given due weight to its importance. So far, no fewer than six parliamentary days have been allocated to it, and the Committee has sat through the night on three occasions, and into the early hours on another.
We had a whole day's debate devoted to Second Reading, which concluded with an endorsement of the principles of the Bill by a majority of 291 to 29—a ratio of 10:1. That debate itself had followed a full debate on the White Paper which set out the principles of the Bill.
Since those debates, the House has spent over 24 hours in its consideration of clause 1; over 20 hours on clause 2 and schedule 1; and, finally, more than 9 hours on clause 3, which we have not yet finished considering. After five days and three nights spent in considering two and a half clauses and a schedule, four clauses remain untouched as well as two schedules, one of which is almost as long as all the clauses taken together, and 25 new clauses have been proposed for our consideration.
Thus, if the rate of progress so far is an indication of how matters will proceed in future, there can be no expectation that the Bill would be secured this Session. I make that assertion assuming the attainment of the Government's other legislative commitments, fulfilling the remaining number of Supply days and the rising of the House at a conventional time for the Summer Recess—important because both recent recesses have been affected by the Falklands situation.
During the course, therefore, of about 60 hours all told there has already been extensive discussion of the principles of the Bill. Nor can it be demonstrated that the


Government are seeking to curtail further discussion because they are determined to force the Bill through unchanged. For example, amendments have already been tabled to clause 3 to enable the Assembly to discuss "reserved" matters of its own volition.
The eventide activities of the House in recent days have not centred on tactics to improve the Bill, or tactics to secure more time for the measured consideration of the Bill. The activities have centred on tactics designed to kill the Bill and effectively to reverse the Second Reading vote of 10 May.
About 30 hon. Members have conducted a persistent and skilful opposition to the Bill throughout the debate in Committee. I say again that the nature of the opposition to the Bill is not to secure its passage after proper and detailed debate. It seeks to force the Government to drop the Bill. The debate has not been about the time appropriate to the Bill; there is no will to secure agreement. On the contrary, the opposition has been based on an assessment of what is necessary to compel the Government to have second thoughts and to extinguish the Bill.

Mr. John Gorst: What discussions have taken place about a voluntary timetable for the conduct of discussions on the rest of the Bill?

Mr. Biffen: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has undertaken discussions with various groups within the House, but that no formulated attempt has been made to secure a voluntary timetable.
It is a collision of will between the Government and a dedicated group of my right hon. and hon. Friends that has brought about this clash and this timetable motion. The Bill itself, and not its prudent consideration, is at stake. My right hon. Friend secured a clear majority on Second Reading. The interest of the House now turns on the strategy of those who wish to succeed by other means to compensate for their failure on Second Reading. For those reasons, the Government have sought to introduce the timetable motion.

Rev. Ian Paisley: What will happen to those important amendments which have been tabled by representatives from Northern Ireland and which are all-important to them and their constituents? Will there be the possibility of voting on those amendments, if not of discussing them?

Mr. Biffen: The timetable motion sets out the broad divisions of time for consideration of the Bill, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have that point in mind when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, I hope that he will explain to the House how much time will be allocated to each of the 17 debates that have been selected by Mr. Speaker and to, perhaps, half of the new clauses that might be selected for discussion? It appears that there might be between a quarter of an hour and half an hour for each of the debates.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that as yet there has been no selection of the new clauses, but his point will be well taken by my right hon. Friend when he replies to the debate.
The motion requires that the Committee stage be brought to a conclusion at 1 am on the Wednesday sitting

and that the Report stage and Third Reading be concluded also by 1 am on the second allotted day. I do not claim that that amount of time is generous. However, I believe that it strikes an equitable balance, given all the other demands on parliamentary time. There has, as I have stated, already been extensive discussion of the main principles and, indeed, on the detail of the Bill.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Biffen: The discussion has been wide as well as long. It has weighed the merits of legislative and executive devolution. It has considered groups of amendments dealing with the formation of an Administration and has examined in the most minute detail the test to be applied to proposals for devolution submitted by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr. Budgen: Instead of dealing with the general oratory, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how much time will be allocated to each of the clauses at present in the Bill, and how much time to the new clauses that may be selected?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that his contributions to the debates will, to some extent, be a determining factor in how long they last. His questions about the detailed working of the timetable motion will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill and will reply to the debate.
We have considered the merits of referendums, the contents of devolution orders and the progress from partial to full devolution. The list is not exhaustive. However, even leaving out of account the six and a half hours taken up on the first day of Committee by points of order and procedure motions, over 40 hours have been devoted to clauses 1 and 2, which, with schedule 1, form the heart of the Bill. In the Government's view, therefore, the time allocated for discussion of the rest of the Bill should allow for constructive and useful discussion of the remaining provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The basis of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that hon. Members who wish to kill the Bill are seeking to prolong the proceedings. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will accept, there are other hon. Members who are achieving, and seeking to achieve, improvements in the Bill. Under the timetable motion they will not be permitted to have their amendments voted upon. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that is the correct procedure for the House?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is right in assuming that the Government's belief is that the opponents of the Bill are trying to secure its death and not its material improvement. Any timetable motion is disagreeable for minority parties such as the hon. Gentleman's.
I have set out the Government's intentions for handling the Bill. They constitute a response to the facts that the Bill has secured a clear Second Reading majority, but that, as things now stand, there is no prospect of the Bill receiving subsequent parliamentary examination and approval. The motion is essentially a towline for a Bill that has become becalmed by resourceful and determined opposition. Without the motion, there is no future for the Bill.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: It is right that I should respond immediately to the proposal for a


timetable. If at the end of the debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) feels that it is necessary to reply, he will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Opposition could adopt the usual stance on guillotine motions. They could do the usual thing and shout "gag", they could be tempted to snarl up the Government's legislative machinery, but everyone knows that at this late stage of the Session there is nothing left to snarl up in the Government's machinery. It has either already been passed or is guillotined and is likely to be passed. There is one overriding reason why we are debating a motion to guillotine discussion of the Northern Ireland Bill. I can probably use stronger language than the Leader of the House. That reason is to prevent the Right-wing junta of the Conservative Party from destroying the legislation.
Over the past few days and nights when the House has been considering the Northern Ireland Bill in Committee some Right-wing Conservatives have made a mockery of the people of Northern Ireland, in using serious debate to conduct a personal vendetta against the Secretary of State. We now face a guillotine motion because of the orchestrated filibuster from the Government Back Benches. This is not a usual timetable motion. It is not directed against Her Majesty's Opposition, but against the Government's Members.
At every stage of the Bill the Opposition have taken a positive attitude. We have made no secret of our dissatisfaction with certain parts of the legislation. We have declared our intention to improve the Bill so that it matches some of the fine words in the Government's White Paper, entitled "Northern Ireland: A Framework for Devolution". One has only to read paragraph 13 of the White Paper to see how close it is to the Opposition's view. It reads:
The Government adheres to the view that in any administration in Northern Ireland there must be reasonable and appropriate arrangements to take account of the interests of the minority which are acceptable to both sides of the community.
In our discussion document on page 3 it is stated:
The success of devolved government depends upon it receiving the confidence and support of a substantial cross-section of both communities.
When the White Paper was debated on 28 April, the Opposition agreed to take note of it. Much of the White Paper was in line with the Labour Party's policy document on Northern Ireland. We especially welcomed the Government's recognition of the unique problems of Northern Ireland and of the existence of two distinct national identities. On Second Reading the Opposition stuck to their line of not seeking to divide the House.

Mr. John Farr: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he keeps referring to the Opposition's point of view? In all the debates, and even today, the Opposition have been noted for the way in which they have boycotted the Bill. Most of our serious debates have taken place in the absence of members of the Opposition other than the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley).

Mr. Concannon: That is typical of what has happened over the past five days and five nights. The only time when we felt we were in Committee was when amendments to improve the Bill were discussed seriously. I take the point

that has been made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). Some Members are trying to do the right thing. They are trying to ensure that the Committee does a proper job. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) must take pride in the fact that he has been involved in a filibuster that has led to the timetable motion today.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Concannon: The hon. Gentleman has been springing up and down like a jackrabbit. If he wants to have a go, I ask him to make a good intervention.

Mr. Budgen: As the right hon. Gentleman is attacking the nature of the opposition to the Bill, might I remind him that every debate has been terminated by the use of a closure? If the discussion had been either irrelevant or repetitious, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Chair would have allowed the closure motion to be considered earlier?

Mr. Concannon: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have had to sit here for five days and five nights and have probably been wooed more than my good lady wooed me when we were courting. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I shall miss a trick on my speech on the guillotine motion. In our opinion there is nothing in the Bill that will prevent Labour's policy from being furthered but, as I said on 10 May, there are a number of shortcomings in the Government's proposals that we should like to see amended. That is why the Bill has had the Opposition's tacit support.
Such was the attitude that we brought to the Committee stage. Our aim all along has been to ensure that the Bill achieves maximum support in Northern Ireland by offering something to members of each community. The two groups of amendments and the two new clauses tabled by the official Opposition were intended to work towards that end. In our view the Bill did not fully live up to many of the statements in the White Paper, particularly on the nationalist community and the Irish dimension. Therefore, we sought to strengthen and change the Bill. That is what Committees are usually for.
The intentions of the Secretary of State with regard to devolving powers to Northern Ireland are fair and honest. Our role over the past few weeks has been to point out the weaknesses in the Bill that detract from those good intentions.
Two groups of amendments tabled by the official Opposition have received a good hearing. The first was to delete the subsection allowing all devolution reports with at least 70 per cent. support in the Assembly to be automatically debated in the House. It was tabled because we believed that it could allow for devolution without the support of both communities in Northern Ireland. In response, the Secretary of State has said that he will reconsider the Bill with a view to introducing a Government amendment on Report. Again, that is what Committees are for.
It has become obvious in Committee that cross-community support is paramount and that the Government and Opposition can see no political progress without cross-community support in Northern Ireland. When our second amendment, which was designed to improve parliamentary control of devolution, was considered, we were given sufficient assurances to persuade us not to press it.
The official Opposition have no quarrel with the way in which the Bill has been handled. We have had ample


time to put our points, and they have received considered responses from Ministers. The blame for the introduction of the timetable motion does not lie with the Opposition. The Leader of the House did not try to make that point against us. There have been attempts by the Conservative Party junta to obstruct and delay the passage of the Bill. We have no complaint about that. It is the affair of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Barry Porter: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Right-wing junta. Does he accept that there are hon. Members who are part of that Right wing who dislike the Bill? They believe that it is ill-conceived and will not lead to what the Secretary of State wants. Equally, there are those on the Right wing of the Conservative Party who take the view that it is right and proper that consideration of the Bill in Committee should be on a proper and curtailed basis. It does no good to kill the Bill by a filibuster.

Mr. Concannon: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. He is a fully paid-up member of the Irish brigade. I exonerate him from what has happened. The Leader of the House has given the statistics regarding the Committee stage. It is obvious from those figures that members of the Conservative Back Benches—with the help of a few other hon. Members—have engaged in a filibuster. I have no quarrel with filibusters and other similar activities. After six years in the Whip's Office I well understand such activities. However, I do not remember ever having done it against my own party, which is what has happened in this case.
There have been a variety of reasons for the filibuster. If any one of the major Northern Ireland parties had not wanted the Bill, or part of it, it could have killed it stone dead. That has always been my opinion. If the position in Northern Ireland is as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) maintains, why have we been here for five days and nights? If they have the support of members of their parties—the majority of Unionist parties will achieve about 66 per cent. of the seats in the Assembly—they can say that they will take in their bat and ball and that they will not play.
Almost all the Northern Ireland parties will fight the Assembly elections. We do not know what will happen, but we should give the people of Northern Ireland a chance to have their say. Most Northern Ireland parties—with a few exceptions—have demonstrated little enthusiasm for the Bill, but none of the party leaders wants to be responsible for killing it off. Most are prepared to go ahead with the Bill, for one reason or another, but no one party wants to carry the can for killing the Bill off.
There are those on the Government Benches who appear to have taken great exception to the Bill. The junta consists of those who, from the beginning, refused to recognise the Government's belief—as outlined in the White Paper—that Northern Ireland is politically and socially different from other parts of the United Kingdom. Within that opposition there was a mystifying sub-group consisting of some members who had never shown any interest in Northern Ireland matters. It confounded some of us for a short time, but their intentions soon became clear. They had not come to speak on behalf of the one and a half million people of Northern Ireland, who have put up with so much suffering and hardship; they were interested only the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
This sub-group could be called the "get Prior brigade". They have used the Bill to mock the people of Northern Ireland in a pathetic attempt to fight personal battles. Those battles are irrelevant to the real issues. Sitting on these Benches night after night watching such antics and such disgraceful treatment of the people of Northern Ireland has not been a pretty sight. One could not see the knives but the blood was running freely.
There was another diversion during the Committee stage. It was a shadowy, crouching figure who flitted across and around the Back Benches. Some might have thought that the term "supergrass" could properly be applied to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr Gow). What his role has been remains one of the great unsolved mysteries. If there is any truth in the stories circulating in the corridors he has a great deal to answer for. I am sorry that he is not here to answer. I followed the usual courtesies of writing to and seeing the hon. Member for Eastbourne. I understand what he is doing this afternoon. The Opposition Benches have probably been able to see more of what has been going on than the Government Front Bench. It has been a nod here and a wink there, a tug at the elbow and a whisper in the corridors. The Committee ought to know at whose instigation the hon. Member has been doing it. Is it at his own or that of the Prime Minister? Those are the rumours that are circulating through the corridors.
The Northern Ireland Bill is presented by the Secretary of State and supported by the Prime Minister. I wish that she had shown her support for the Secretary of State in a material way. The behaviour of the Government Back Benchers has resulted in a position never before witnessed by me or many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Government Benches have been so divided that almost every amendment has had to have a closure motion moved by the Government Chief Whip against his own party. If it had not been for the effects of the Falklands issue that would have received the media cover it deserved. If it had happened in the Labour Party screaming headlines would have resulted even above the Falklands. It is my bad luck that today I have contend with a royal baby.
If the Government are to achieve this legislation they will need the timetable motion against their own members. It is a unique position and one that Her Majesty's Opposition could have exploited. We have resisted that temptation over the long days and nights. We do not envisage that this measure will bring the dire results to the people of Northern Ireland that many of its critics anticipate. The Labour Party has no wish to do the dirty work of those who want the Bill defeated. We believe—as our policy document states—that the people of Northern Ireland should be given the chance to set up an Assembly and move towards devolution. We have no intention of being blamed for denying them those rights. The best advice that I can give my right hon. and hon. Friends is to regard the timetable motion as part of a quarrel within the Tory Party. The motion is not directed against Her Majesty's Opposition. The opponents of the Bill—for whatever reasons—have tried to move the Labour Party into a position where its votes can be used to defeat the Bill. We should not assist them to do the dirty work. If the motion is defeated there will be only one outcome, as the Leader of the House said, and that will be the killing of the Bill.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that support for a timetable motion in these circumstances is dirty work and that is why he is advising his right hon. and hon. Friends to abstain, or does he believe that the guillotine is a necessary measure to assist the Bill's passage? If he believes that it is a necessary measure, why does he not support it?

Mr. Concannon: One has to make a decision. The Opposition had to decide what their attitude was on Wednesday or Thursday of last week. I had to make certain recommendations to my party. My recommendation was that the Opposition should not divide the House. If other hon. Members seek to divide it, that is entirely up to them.

Mr. Robert Atkins: A very good answer.

Mr. Concannon: I understand and appreciate why some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have consistently opposed timetable motions over the years. My advice to them is that we are faced with a unique situation. On the other hand, others of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to support the Government if a Division takes place. There is a third group of hon. Members who favour the introduction of timetable motions before Bills start their passage through the House.
The Opposition have not been gagged. If I could have obstructed the "Tebbit Bill" or any of the other obstreperous and monstrous pieces of legislation that have now virtually completed their passage through the House, I should have had second thoughts about the advice that I gave to my party. However, I continue to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to let this issue remain a fight on the Government Benches. I ask them not to help to camouflage a split on the Government Benches. In my view the Opposition should not divide the House. Let the junta have that privilege.

Mr. John Peyton: In my experience guillotine debates are occasions for anger and opportunism. Of late years, the anger has become more and more synthetic and the opportunism more obvious. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, is to be congratulated on having resisted the claims of opportunism. He suggested that knives had been flashing, but confessed that no blood had been seen. I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his almost miraculous survival. He does not appear, on the surface at least, to be suffering from the acutest form of anaemia, and I am sure that we are all pleased about that.

Mr. Budgen: Hear, hear.

Mr. Peyton: It is just possible to question—a thing that I would never ordinarily do—the wisdom of the Government's timing in introducing a measure such as the Bill so late in the Session.

Mr. Budgen: Hear, hear.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, but I do not know whether he will support what I am about to say. The Government should have learnt from long experience that the House is not at its best in mid-summer. I have sometimes been tempted into the belief that what is alleged

to happen to hares in March happens to politicians in June. It seemed rather strange to entrust a rather delicate measure to the House at such a time.
I accept—I do not doubt that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will be repeating this argument—that, on the whole, guillotines are devices designed for the convenience of Governments and, therefore, are to be looked at askance by the rest of us. That view applies especially when constitutional measures are involved. However, experience teaches that the quality of debate and discussion is infinitely improved after a timetable motion.

Mr. Budgen: No.

Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend will allow me to have my opinion. I am bound to say that what he has been saying over the weeks has done nothing to dislodge that opinion.
As I understand it, the Bill is offered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office not as a cure-all, but as a measure from which it is hoped some progress will be made against the background of a state of affairs that has endured too long, that is sombre in the extreme and that has manifested itself in cruelty, violence and bloodshed.
My right hon. Friend has one of the most unenviable tasks in the Government. After considerable reflection and some anxiety I find it difficult to deny him my support. I do not think that it is for me as an English Member of Parliament, who has never ventured to take part in a discussion on Northern Ireland affairs, to criticise the conduct of those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. I feel that they must answer to their constituencies. They are not obliged to face my criticism. However, I think it unwise and dangerous for a handful of English Members to set out not to amend the Bill but to destroy it, and with it whatever chance the Bill may contain of making some progress for Northern Ireland. It is with considerable reluctance and, I must confess, with some surprise that I have decided to vote for the guillotine motion. I shall do so in the belief that the Government have been patient and are now justified, in the face of the opposition that they have met, in introducing it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I take up directly the challenge which was issued by the Leader of the House. I accept that this motion represents a new dimension on the well-trodden ground of guillotine motions. The motion is unique because, unlike any other guillotine motion that I can recall, it involves in its fortunes the life and death of men, women and children; the predictable and certain death of more persons than would otherwise have suffered that fate in the coming months and years. In the light of that new dimension, I assert that it was not merely right but the duty of those who perceived that to be so to use all the powers available to Members of Parliament—I use the words of the right hon. Gentleman again—to force the House to think again. The House needs to think again about what it is doing in forcing through this legislation.
I understand that the Liberal Party will assist the guillotine. There is no particular surprise or significance in that. The Liberal Party is a great lover of guillotines. Indeed, if one scratches a Liberal, one will commonly find a dictator. They have voted for most of the best guillotines


during the past 30 years. Nor is there much significance in the behaviour of the Labour Party in exile known as the Social Democratic Party.
There is great significance in what was said not just this afternoon, but consistently during the debates on the Bill by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) on behalf of the official Opposition. He and his colleague the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) made no secret of the reason why they did not oppose the Bill and why consequently they will not oppose the measure which is necessary to its passage which is before the House today. It is because, in their opinion, the Bill will forward their policy for Northern Ireland, which is to achieve—achieve, indeed, by persuasion, although it is not persuasion in which they intend to take part—the detachment of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and its embodiment in an all-Ireland State. There is no secret about this. They have made no secret about the fact that they regard the Bill as tending in that direction. That is the reason for the position that they are taking up today, as they have taken it up consistently since the White Paper was produced. They cannot have expected, as the duration of the debates enabled them, to obtain the confirmation of that belief which has been vouchsafed to us.
I make no apology for putting on the record again the remarkable document whose existence was, if not disclosed, at any rate brought to the recollection of many hon. Members by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). He referred to the notes for Conservative candidates issued on 25 April, a week before the general election at which the Conservative Party won a majority. After a statement of the policy as it stood in the manifesto of the Conservative Party, the document ran as follows:
The next Government will come under considerable pressure to launch a new high-powered political initiative on Northern Ireland with the object of establishing another 'power-sharing' government in the Province which could pave the way for a federal constitution linking Ulster to the Irish Republic.
It went on to indicate the elements which would lie behind that considerable pressure. They not only would be from within the United Kingdom but would include pressure from the Irish Republic and from the United States. The hon. Member for Epping Forest described it as prescient. That was over-generous. Whoever wrote those words knew perfectly well what was in preparation, for no more accurate a description of what was to follow in the subsequent three years could have been penned and certainly would not have been inserted where it was inserted except upon the basis of reliable knowledge, which has since been verified.
From the moment that the Government came into office in May 1979 the prediction contained in that document was fulfilled step by step. Step by step, efforts were made to establish in the Province an Assembly. Whatever initiatives failed, they were immediately succeeded by others, and at the heart of those initiatives was the intention to have a separate representative body in that part of the United Kingdom. I have quoted before in the House, with his assent, the revelation which was made to me at the earliest of these initiatives by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that there would be an Assembly. That had been decided upon, not by Ministers but by those who intended to bring it about. The Secretary of State can take the sneer off his face as it is his own fault if he is unable to perceive what goes on under his nose.
Step by step there was to be set up a representative body in the Assembly which could, in the words of that document, "pave the way" to what was the intention forshadowed.
Step by step also the federal—a word which has not been very popular during the last three years, but it is a fair constitutional description—arrangement was set up, first by the meeting between Premier Lynch and the Prime Minister, carried on with the meeting between the Prime Minister and Haughey on 8 December 1980 and then by the meeting with FitzGerald in November 1981.
The documents which followed from those meetings, all of them drafted before the meetings took place and all of them signed without a full understanding of the meaning and the intention which lay behind them, were steps towards the completion of the other element, for there were two elements which were necessary, as the Conservative Party was informed in its own notes for candidates by those who had been following these matters inside the party before the general election. One was a representative body in Northern Ireland and the other was an Anglo-Irish matrix into which that could fit.
I do not think, however, that those who laboured unsuccessfully for two and a half years up to last autumn could have believed their good fortune when the right hon. Gentleman arrived in the Department, for he put behind the high-powered political initiative his very considerable determination and standing in the Government. That is why what had not happened during the previous two and a half years is being forced upon Northern Ireland and upon the House now.

Mr. Porter: I have tried during the Committee stage to elicit some information from the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. It appears that the future of the Assembly, in the terms of the proposal, is in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends and his quasi-friends. If they will not put forward proposals, the Assembly will fall. I asked in Committee what the right hon. Gentleman and his friends intended to do. I said at that time that the Committee was entitled to know. I think that the House is now entitled to know.

Mr. Powell: It is a pity that we are not to have the opportunity of examining the remaining clauses of the Bill when some of the answers to the question which the hon. Gentleman has posed could be more adequately explained. Let me content myself with pointing to the fact that after the third of the Anglo-Irish meetings to which I have referred the regret that was expressed by the Irish Prime Minister was that the parliamentary tier of the federal arrangement could not yet be set up because there was not an Assembly in Northern Ireland. He at any rate felt sure—and he is not innocent of the political composition of the population of Northern Ireland—that if once one could get that tertial quid, that separate Assembly, separate spokesmen of what is an integral part of the United Kingdom, the remainder would follow.
I am in difficulty at this point because I have no wish to say anything which would qualify my desire to accept entirely the integrity of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions. The right hon. Gentleman has more than once asserted that he believes that the effect of the Bill will be to strengthen the position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. Not only is that impossible to assert or to believe, and not only does it run contrary to all the


evidence; it runs contrary to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman—perhaps by inadvertence—from time to time. We were prepared for it by remarks that were made in a considered interview by the Irish peer who accompanied the right hon. Gentleman to his present office. He said:
Greater devolved government is not the solution. It is an essential contribution to a new set of attitudes. It is one part of the strategy—co-operation with the Irish Republic is another. Whatever the pressures on us to drop it, we have to set our faces against that—like flint.
That fits neatly like a hand into the glove that was displayed three years ago.
As recently as the end of last week, the right hon. Gentleman said on the radio in the Province that integration is not compatible with meaningful relations with the Irish Republic. Only a devolved structure could supply the necessary basis. It could not be put more tersely or more correctly. The purpose of the Bill, the purpose of the constitution that the Bill will enact, is to found one of the necessary pillars of a federal arrangement into which Northern Ireland will be moved, out of the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland.
However impenetrable those facts appear to be on this side of the water and in this House, they are plainly visible in the Province. There is no difficulty for the IRA to understand the purpose and tendency of this legislation. They say to themselves "Now we know and understand where Her Majesty's Government stand. They are engaged on an operation with the United States and the Irish Republic to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and to put it where we want it to be—in a united Ireland. What is more, they will win. Just look at the forces that are assembled on their side. Here is the evidence of it."
Everyone in Northern Ireland who is opposed to the Union must draw comfort, satisfaction and assurance for the future from this legislation and the Government's determination to force it through. Conversely, those in Northern Ireland—they are the majority—who desire beyond anything else to retain their membership of the United Kingdom and their British status are discouraged and antagonised by the sight of their own Parliament and Government who, they believe, pledged themselves to that cause, enacting legislation whose purpose and intended outcome is only too clear not only to themselves but to their opponents.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): The right hon. Gentleman started by making a serious allegation about the level of violence. He is now arguing that the Bill hands to the IRA and the Republican nationalist cause all that it wants. If he believes that, why does he say that there will be more violence in Northern Ireland? Surely the logical conclusion of his argument is that, if the IRA believes that it has what it wants, there is no need for it to resort to violence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I remind the House that we are not discussing the Bill. We are discussing the allocation of time motion.

Mr. Powell: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are discussing a motion that was moved to prevent the House from being forced to think again and the

Government to drop the Bill at this stage. It is precisely to that contention of the Leader of the House that I am directing my arguments.
With regard to the Secretary of State's point, the legislation is a standing encouragement to the IRA. It is a standing encouragement to those who believe that by violence they can anticipate or ensure that the foreseen fate of Northern Ireland is in their hands. It is a standing encouragement to those who are sufficiently light-headed or unwise to believe that terror and the escalation of terror can be met with the escalation of terror. The right hon. Gentleman has taken my point and understood my argument.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Did my right hon. Friend see the front page of yesterday's Belfast News Letter? It read:
A senior police source last night linked the build-up in bomb and gun attacks on members and former members of the security forces with the Commons debate on the Devolution Bill.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am not surprised.
For 10 years or more I have been saying that it is uncertainty that takes lives in Northern Ireland—uncertainty about the purpose, intention and determination of the United Kingdom. The Bill will undermine that determination. That is my demonstration of the assertion with which I began. It is not only by those who come here from Northern Ireland constituencies, it is not only by those whose bounden duty it is to understand and speak for all those whom they represent that these matters can be perceived from a distance.
I shall conclude by quoting from a leading article in the The Daily Telegraphof last week. It said:
In the view of all considerable sections of Irish opinion and of most people in Britain who have any pretence to knowledge of the subject, the Bill could produce irretrievable disaster. On the most favourable estimate, it has no urgency. For all Mr. Prior says, it has nothing to do with economic recovery in Ulster or with the defeat of the IRA. It could not matter if it did not reach the statute book for another year; it would be far better if it never reached it at all.
It would be far better for those whose lives the Bill will cost if the Bill were allowed to be killed in the place where it ought to die.

Sir Nigel Fisher: In more than 32 years in the House I have never before tried to speak in a timetable debate. They are usually unproductive and repetitive. I do so today because the Government are well justified in tabling the motion and because the circumstances with which we are faced are unusual. The Bill has already kept the Committee sitting for four days and four long and weary nights. I understand that 63 hours have been taken and very little progress has been made.
I know that many Northern Ireland Members and some of my hon. Friends are genuinely convinced that this is a bad Bill and that it will do more harm than good. I should not wish to accuse them of filibustering. They have usually made legitimate points, although sometimes at great length and in rather unnecessary detail. But they have kept the Conservative Party in the House night after night to support the Government against a small number of my hon. Friends who oppose the Bill.
At the present rate of progress, we could all become completely exhausted through all-night sittings, or the


House would have to sit well into August, or the Bill would have to be dropped. It is not reasonable to expect the Government to drop the Bill simply because about 20 of my hon. Friends dislike it. They are perfectly entitled to dislike it and to oppose it, but the Government and the rest of us are equally entitled to support it without the complete disruption of parliamentary business.
It has been suggested that the Government should not guillotine a constitutional Bill, but the European Communities Bill was guillotined 10 years ago, as were earlier Government of Ireland measures which were considerably more far-reaching than the present Bill, so I do not think that that argument has any validity. If the Northern Ireland political parties do not wish to work the Bill or to take the opportunities it offers, we can continue thereafter with direct rule and no great damage will have been done. Meanwhile, the maxim that the minority must have its say but the majority must have its way should apply.
The minority has certainly had its say so far. It is now time for the majority to have its way and I therefore support the timetable motion.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has said, the line-up of Republicanism in Ireland is against the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that Mr. Haughey somehow sees in the Bill the attainment of his objective of bringing Northern Ireland into the Republic. In fact, Mr. Haughey is dead set against the measure. Indeed, he opposed it before it even saw the light of day.
The Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Carron), who has not taken his seat in the House, has also made it plain—and no one speaks for the IRA better than he—that he is utterly opposed to the Bill. The SDLP has declared itself opposed to the Bill, and the IRA has also declared that it opposes the Bill. So it is not right to say that the Bill is such a good measure from the Republican point of view that Republicans are welcoming it with open arms.
I take up the thesis of the right hon. Member for Down, South. He says that Her Majesty's Opposition have it as their objective to put the people of Northern Ireland into a united Ireland not by force but by persuasion. We know that. He also says that, according to the notes that he has read, the Conservative Party is secretly working for the same objective. Yet he then tells the people of Ireland not to put their trust in their elected representatives but to keep their trust in Westminster. It is because I have faith in the elected representatives of Northern Ireland that I want an elected Assembly, because the greatest hindrance to Mr. Haughey, the IRA and anyone in this House who wishes to destroy Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom will be that Assembly, which will have a Unionist majority. For that reason, I believe that we can trust the people of Northern Ireland.
I have often said in the House, and I repeat today, that the destiny of the people of Northern Ireland will be decided not by the House, with all due respect to the House, or by Mr. Haughey, with all due respect to him, but by the people of Northern Ireland themselves. So long as the Unionist people are firmly resolved to abide by and defend their Province within the United Kingdom, they can attain that. That is my message to the people of Northern Ireland today.
The House should trust the people of Northern Ireland to elect their own representatives and to have their own Assembly. If it never brings devolved government to Northern Ireland, it will at least be a forum of elected representatives to which the House, whether it likes it or not, will have to pay heed—for how could the House turn its back on decisions made by an elected body set up in the way that the House intends to set up the Assembly?

Mr. Budgen: It is a recipe for conflict.

Rev. Ian Paisley: There is no conflict. There was a Parliament in Northern Ireland for 50 years and there was no conflict between it and this House. Indeed, it was Mr. Churchill who said that the people of Northern Ireland had the right to act under the 1920 Act because those powers were given to them by this sovereign Parliament.
Another vital point must be answered. When the Prime Minister met Prime Ministers of the Irish Republic, there was no opposition to the sell-out from the right hon. Member for Down, South or his leader and hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). Indeed, they lambasted me and said that I was the bogy man. They said that I was wrong about what was taking place and in the actions that I took at that time. The leader of the Official Unionists in the House even sent an agenda to the Prime Minister for her talks with the Irish Prime Minister—I have a copy of it—setting out the points that they wished her to discuss with Mr. Haughey. The right hon. Member for Down, South now says that those talks were the beginning of a betrayal. If that is so, as I believe that it is, the Official Unionists should have had no part in or truck with the talks, let alone help to draw up an agenda for them.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman says that he has a copy of the items that my hon. Friend said should be the subject of the joint study if it took place. If he will read them out, the House will see that they were inconsistent with any political arrangement between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic and consistent with the union of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom. Will the hon. Gentleman read them out?

Rev. Ian Paisley: On this, I completely deviate from the right hon. Gentleman's position.

Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman read them out?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Ulster Unionists have never believed that the Taoiseach should have any say whatever in or discuss the future of the people of Northern Ireland. I make it clear to the House today that I do not believe that any Dublin Prime Minister should discuss these matters. If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) believes that the Dublin Prime Minister should discuss the intimate affairs of Northern Ireland and its relationship with the Republic, let him believe that, and if the Unionists believe that, let them say so, but I make it perfectly clear that I do not believe that there should he any discussions between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the the Prime Minister of the Republic.

Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I shall not give way. I want to finish this.

Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman read the agenda?

Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman should not get so excited. He should contain himself and listen.
As a Unionist, I have never believed, and neither have the majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland, that there should be discussions with the Dublin Government about internal matters that concern the future of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Powell: rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: I was completely opposed to the discussions. I go further. I met the leader of the Official Unionists, the hon. Member for Antrim, South, and pointed out to him the seriousness of these meetings between London and Dublin. I asked him to join other Unionists in opposing them. He said that he would not, because he was proposing an agenda for such meetings. Those are the facts and there is no doubt about them.

Mr. Powell: rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: There is no doubt that the thesis put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South does not stand up to scrutiny. On behalf of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland I maintain, as they have always maintained, that they are entitled to remain within the United Kingdom and that they are the best defence of their own future.

Mr. Powell: If the hon. Member does not have the points on the agenda handy, perhaps I might give them. The first was the deletion from the constitution of the Republic its claim to part of the territory of the United Kingdom. That was the first point that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South said should be dealt with by any joint studies.
The second was a demarcation of the international frontier between the two countries. The Republic has persistently refused to do that. The third was the removal of citizenship privileges enjoyed in the United Kingdom by citizens of the Irish Republic.
Those were three of the items on the agenda which the hon. Gentleman did not dare to quote. [Interruption]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that these matters evoke strong emotions, but the debate is getting fairly wide of the motion.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Member said in the House today that these talks were the beginning of a conspiracy to sell out Northern Ireland. If they were, why should his hon. Friend draw up an agenda for the talks, no matter what was on the agenda? There should be no talks with the Taoiseach on matters concerning Northern Ireland.

Mr. Powell: rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Matters relating to Northern Ireland should be the concern of the people of Northern Ireland and this House. It is clear that the House has decreed that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland will have the final say in their destiny. The House has said that the House will not have the final say. No matter what the right hon. Member for Down, South said about the agenda, if he maintains that the meeting was the beginning of a conspiracy he should have opposed it and not consulted about the agenda.

Mr. Powell: rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall not give way again. It does not matter what was on the agenda, and it does not matter

what the Official Unionists said. Although they now say that it was a conspiracy, they were prepared to tell the Prime Minister that she should raise these matters at the talks.

Mr. James A. Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is with regret and reluctance that I bring to your attention the fact that the debate is straying far from the motion. If that is to continue, it will be a further misuse of the time of the House. I hope that you will bring this discussion to an end now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to address his remarks to the motion.

Rev. Ian Paisley: With due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if an hon. Member is permitted to make certain remarks in the House I have the right to reply to them. If you do not want me to do so, I shall be happy to withdraw from the House today. I reserve the right to reply in the House to hon. Members who are held to be in order and to say what those whom I represent expect me to say.
The hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) said that the minority should have a say but the majority should have its way. That is exactly what we are asking for in Northern Ireland. If this House were tied to a 70 per cent. majority, this motion would not be carried.
I now refer to the amendments. By no stretch of the imagination can the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State claim that the amendments tabled by myself and my hon. Friends are wrecking amendments. They were tabled in good faith, to improve the Bill. Will we have an opportunity to vote on those amendments? From page 3025 of the Order Paper it would appear that any motion or amendment moved by a member of the Government can be voted upon. Will the Government give the House an opportunity to vote on amendments tabled by Northern Ireland hon. Members? If there is to be only limited discussion on the amendments, surely an opportunity should be given for the House to vote on them. I hope that the Secretary of State will give the House that assurance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down".] Hon. Members should not say "Sit down", because it will only encourage me to continue.
Whatever the procedures in the House, the Bill is important to Northern Ireland and should be fully discussed, particularly the amendments to which I refer, although I disagree with many of them. Some hon. Members have not sat through all our debates. They have come to the House only for this debate. Many interesting matters have been debated, and even the Secretary of State admitted that matters of the utmost importance had been raised and that he was glad to reply to them.
The debate should not be curtailed, but if it is I hope that the Secretary of State will give the House an opportunity to vote on amendments which we believe will strengthen the Bill.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) concluded on an important point to which I shall refer later.
There are two internal arguments taking place in the House today—one within Unionism and the other within the Conservative Party. However, I do not want to become


preoccupied with those. I want to put it on record that the Liberal Party is in favour of the Bill and wants it enacted. Nobody claims, not even the Government, that the Bill provides a certain solution to the problems in Northern Ireland. However, it is supported by many people in Northern Ireland. For example, in a poll in The Irish Times it received strong support in Protestant and Roman Catholic communities. The Bill gives people in Northern Ireland the opportunity to elect representatives to discuss and, if they so choose, to deal with a wide range of their own affairs. As such, both I and my party welcome it.
The passing of the Bill to achieve those objects is being prevented by a small group, primarily in the Conservative Party, that is determined to oppose them. They are quite entitled to do so, but the House is equally entitled to seek means of ensuring that in the end the majority will prevail. No credit will reflect on this House if it is seen to be unable to take a decision on the matter. People in Northern Ireland would disapprove of, and regret, the fact that the House of Commons was incapable of arriving at a decision, especially when hon. Members by a ratio of about 10 to 1 support a particular point of view.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the SDP forum in Northern Ireland of which, presumably, he approves is opposed to the Bill and to the Assembly that it proposes?

Mr. Beith: I do not approve of the view taken by the SDP forum in Northern Ireland, nor do I believe that view to be represented in the SDP in Great Britain. The view of that small group has, I believe, been influenced by the incursion of a small number of people of determined Unionist integrationist views who are not representative of the SDP in the United Kingdom as a whole.
The House of Commons must be seen to be capable of taking a decision on this matter. I acknowledge that hon. Members are entitled to oppose the Bill if they so wish, but before the end of the debate we ought to know whether they enjoy the tacit approval of the Prime Minster. That has been widely rumoured. There has been suspiciously little attempt to dispel that rumour, and I would hate Conservative Members to be confused about where their promotion prospects lie. The House should have a clear indication whether the Prime Minister supports the Bill. There has been no attempt, certainly by those who oppose the Bill, to dispel the suggestion that in some way she is lukewarm towards it.
The Bill seeks to achieve an essentially Liberal object of enabling people to elect representatives to deal with their own affairs within their own community. It is something on which the House of Commons is entitled to reach a judgment.
We must be clear that there is no principle that constitutional Bills cannot be timetabled. There has never been such a principle, and had there been it would have been honoured far more in the breach than in the observance. The principle that does exist is that constitutional Bills should be taken on the Floor of the House. That is a perfectly proper principle which has been observed in this case.
However, the operation of that principle puts even greater pressure on the achievement of sensible periods for the discussion of Bills. A constitutional Bill is not sent to a Committee that can sit for months on end before the Bill comes back on Report. Such a Bill occupies the time of

the entire House and precludes other business until it is dealt with. That places an even greater obligation on us to ensure that there is orderly discussion within a reasonable time. There is certainly no principle that a timetable motion cannot be applied to a constitutional Bill, and I should reject such a principle if anyone sought to advance it today.
There are, however, problems about all timetable motions, and there are reasonable grounds of objection to the way in which many of them are framed. Indeed, some of those objections have not been noticed as much by some Conservative Members on previous occasions as they have been today. I take the case cited by the hon. Member for Antrim, North—that of amendments moved by parties other than the Government. Such amendments, once the guillotine has expired, can be put to the vote only if they are moved by a Minister of the Crown. I should be very surprised if the Secretary of State or the Leader of the House offered to move amendments on behalf of Opposition parties. They have never done so in the past, and I doubt whether they would be prepared to do so now.
It ought to be within the recollection of many hon. Members that in the past the Liberal Party has divided the House on the principle that amendments selected by Mr. Speaker ought to be the subject of a vote. A failing in successive guillotine motions has been that no provision has been made to vote on amendments, other than Government amendments, that Mr. Speaker has seen tit to select. The House has repeated that failing on many occasions, and it should be put right in all guillotine motions, not just this one.
We give Mr. Speaker and the Chairmen of Committees the responsibility for selecting which amendments need to be debated. Having allowed that discretion, it is surely sufficient to assume that Mr. Speaker or the Chairman will not select amendments that ought not to be the subject of a vote. In the past, I have tabled amendments to timetable motions to enshrine that principle in our procedures, but these amendments have never gained the support of a majority in the House. I hope that some day the House recognise that principle, and perhaps the experience of this guillotine motion will teach a larger group of hon. Members that it is an important principle.
We cannot claim that the timetable motion now before us is over-generous. However, that in part is a consequence of having spent so much time on the clauses so far. It calls into question the practice of moving a guillotine motion at a relatively late stage in the discussion of the Bill.

Mr. Budgen: Bearing in mind that 17 different debates have been selected by Mr. Speaker, that there are 25 new clauses and one new schedule, and that we do not yet know how many of those new clauses will be selected for debate should the timetable motion fail, what would the hon. Gentleman describe as a reasonable time for 17 debates and perhaps another 10 on the new clauses?

Mr. Beith: The proper question to ask is: what is a reasonable time for discussion of the whole Bill? Much time has been expended to an unreasonable extent on that part of the Bill that has been debated so far. We could, of course, discuss the Bill for ever, but I am sure that most hon. Members would agree that it should not have taken many more days than have so far elapsed to discuss the Bill as a whole. Had the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends


rationed themselves a little more carefully in the earlier debates, the allocation of time would have been rather better.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman's argument is reasonable. However, had he attended the debates on the amendments he would know that in nearly every case there were on average only six or seven speeches, including the speech of the Minister. On the whole, most speeches lasted about 25 minutes. However, as the Patronage Secretary had to move a closure motion in each case, there was no opportunity for us to succeed in doing what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Beith: On at least one occasion the hon. Gentleman exceeded the 25-minute average by a considerable margin. The only conclusion that can be reached by an outside observer is that an enormous amount of time has already been spent on the Bill. Had that time been better allocated over the Bill as a whole, reasonable discussion would have been achieved on every clause.
I do not claim that this is the best-framed timetable motion that I have ever seen. We could manage to produce better timetable motions which also gave proper opportunities to Opposition parties to have their amendments voted upon. As the issue that now confronts us is whether the vast majority of hon. Members shall have effect given to their desire for the Bill to pass or whether that desire should be prevented by a small minority of hon. Members, I am bound to advise my hon. Friends that remaining discussions on the Bill should be subject to a timetable, and that they should therefore vote for the motion.

Sir William Clark: The House has heard a condescending speech from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I do not know how he has the nerve to lecture my hon. Friends over the allocation of time and how long they speak. The arrogance and the impertinence of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the promotion prospects of some 20 or 30 hon. Members is perhaps an eye-opener into the workings of the Liberal Party.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) did himself a disservice and certainly confused me. The hon. Gentleman said that the Official Unionist Party had given an agenda for the talks but, having made the accusation, refused point blank to say what the Official Unionist Members had stated. If the three points about which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) reminded the House had been taken into account, those talks would never have occurred. It was wrong for that accusation to be made.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir William Clark: I shall be a little more courteous than the hon. Member for Antrim, North.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The point I made was that, after the talks took place, a statement was issued that all relations between the islands would be discussed. That was repugnant to the Ulster Unionists who therefore should not take part in such talks.

Mr. James A. Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appeal to you again. There might have been some justification for two Northern Ireland Members to introduce this issue into the debate. There is no excuse for it now being introduced. We are talking about a timetable motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help, but I have heard nothing that is out of order.

Sir William Clark: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your protection. If an hon. Member is trying to make up his or her mind about how to vote, and an accusation passes backwards and forwards, an hon. Member is surely entitled to try to get to the bottom of the accusation.
I think certainly that my hon. Friends will agree that I am not a natural rebel. I do not normally vote against my party. I have voted against my party twice. On both occasions I stood up in the House and gave my reasons. Having acted in that manner only twice during my 20 years here, surely it can clearly be seen to be a matter of extreme importance to me to rebel against my Government.
I voted for the Second Reading of the Bill in the forlorn hope that it could probably be altered in Committee and become a much better Bill. I am sure that I speak for many people in my party when I say that very few Conservative Members like the Bill. They are reluctantly voting in the Lobby for the Government out of sheer loyalty.
I should like to tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that two points justify opposition to the Bill among Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for Down, South referred to what had happened before the general election. I should like to remind my right hon. Friend of what was contained in our manifesto. For the sake of brevity, I shall not read out the words, which are probably imprinted on his mind. It does not look, however, as if we have followed them.
We said that we would seek to establish regional local authorities. This proposal was expanded in daily notes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has referred, pointing out clearly that the interpretation of the manifesto was that we would resist any devolution and aim for local authorities in Northern Ireland as they exist in this country. If Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, it should enjoy the same privileges and the same institutions as any other part.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend is arguing the case for integration. If so, he has to tell the House why he voted for the Bill on Second Reading.

Sir William Clark: I should like to say how I view the whole Bill. I am prepared to take the opinion of people who know something about Northern Ireland. I think that I go along with what the Official Unionists say. No one seems to like the Bill. I remind the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest was at one time, with the late Airey Neave, a Front Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland. It was on the basis of their advice, the daily notes and the manifesto that I fought the election, as did all my hon. Friends.
During debates on the Bill, alternatives have been proposed for the introduction of local government and complete integration with the mainland. I cannot see why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided


upon the change. I would think, as an observer, that the first priority for action in Northern Ireland is security. I agree partially with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that the guillotine motion has been introduced at a very late stage during examination of the Bill. After 60 hours of debate, with more clauses, new clauses and schedules still to be discussed, it makes a mockery of the Bill to allocate one day on the Floor of the House for debating them and a further day for Report and Third Reading. Some hon. Members have tabled amendments that they will be unable to discuss or, probably, vote upon. Yet this is an important Bill for Northern Ireland. I cannot see why the Government have been so ungenerous in giving only two more days for the passage of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have second thoughts.
It is not my habit to rebel or to vote against my party. In these circumstances, however, I am doing so. I assure my right hon. Friend that I am not doing so out of personal animosity—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The gaffer has told the hon. Gentleman what to do.

Sir William Clark: What never surprises the House is the lack of information of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Most times, in his interventions, he gets it absolutely wrong.

Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I was staying up all through the night on this matter—I did not see hide or hair of the hon. Gentleman—I came across a conversation involving the Prime Minister's parliamentary private secretary who was placating the rebels to the extent of saying—I paraphrase slightly—"It is all right if you carry on rebelling because the gaffer says so."

Sir William Clark: It would not be a bad idea if the hon. Gentleman occasionally did his homework with more thoroughness. One of the reasons why I have not been able to be present—I am leaving again shortly—is that I am taking part in the Finance Bill Standing Committee upstairs. As hon. Members who have the pleasure or misfortune to serve on the Committee know, it sits until 1 am or 2 am. I am sure that the sittings would probably be improved by the attendance of the hon. Member for Bolsover.
My right hon. Friend must think again about this matter. It is nonsense to allow only two more days for this very important Bill. It should be radically altered so that we can go forward, united. Let us not have a half-baked Bill with Conservative Members reluctantly voting for it. I shall vote against the timetable motion.

Mr. David Winnick: Some of the earlier exchanges today gave us a glimpse of the debates to come in the proposed Northern Ireland Assembly. I do not accept that it is wrong to timetable a constitutional measure. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) gave us examples of constitutional Bills that were timetabled, such as the EEC Bill, so principle is not involved.

Mr. Budgen: As the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords, would he expect the Tory Party to be in favour of some form of timetable motion in the event of such a measure being brought forward by his Government?

Mr. Winnick: That is an interesting question, but I shall not speculate on what is likely to happen about Labour Government proposals, which I hope will come in the next Parliament.
I can understand the pressure of the majority of Government Members to see a motion such as this. Those Conservative Members who have no strong feelings about the Bill can hardly have been happy to be here night after night, spending most or all of the night here because of the attitude of about 25 or 30 of their colleagues. It is understandable that there has been great pressure on the Leader of the House from his party to bring in a guillotine.
I wish to explain my attitude to the motion and my disagreement with those who have been opposing the Bill, but I should like to pay tribute to the parliamentary skills and talents, and the staying powers, of those hon. Members who have been opposing the Bill. They have used all the machinery of the House, and they were entitled to do so, because one reason why we have a House of Commons is so that some hon. Members can try to oppose and obstruct a Bill which they believe will do damage.
One could argue that a guillotine motion is always a tribute to the persistence of the opponents of a Bill. In this case the opponents come in the main from the Government side of the House. When the Leader of the House introduced the motion, he rightly said that if there was no guillotine there would be no Bill. It is no great secret that the Government intended, almost from the beginning, to introduce a guillotine.
I hope that any praise from me will not cause any harm to those opposing the Bill, but I must say that it is never easy to oppose one's Government. There have been occasions when I have had to do so, with some of my hon. Friends, but to oppose a Bill in the way that Conservative Members have done shows their independence of mind. I have no criticism to make of what they have done.
However, I must say that had there been similar Back-Bench opposition when a Labour Government were in office, there would perhaps have been a few, more headlines than there have been in the past few weeks. When Conservative Members rebel, and do so in the way that we have been witnessing, there seems not to be as much desire on the part of the newspapers and the media generally to publicise it as there is when Labour Members of Parliament rebel against their Government.
I come now to what I should do this evening. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that he was in favour of an Assembly in Northern Ireland. I am not. I do not consider that the Bill has any relevance to the prevailing conditions in Northern Ireland. When we consider the tragedy and the devastation that occur in Northern Ireland, we must inevitably ask ourselves whether the Bill will do anything to help ease the problems. I do not believe that it will.
Northern Ireland Members should not take the view, as on occasions they may do, that those of us who represent mainland constituencies do not understand or appreciate what is happening, day in and day out, in Northern Ireland. It is sometimes said that when the terrorists bomb the mainland in London, Birmingham and elsewhere we are alerted in some sense, but that we still do not understand the conditions in the Province and what happens there every day, or virtually every day. We understand only too well what citizens of both communities have to endure from terrorism and


intimidation in Northern Ireland. We have no illusions. Understandably, however, we come to different points of view on how the problems can and should be resolved.
Therefore, as I am not in favour of the Bill, I have to ask myself whether I should join the opposition to the motion. Would it not be logical to do so? It would certainly be easy to do so.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has indulged in a long preamble, but now we are on to the gist of the thing. As Members of Parliament, our job in Opposition is to make sure that we harass the Government in all ways. For example, the House of Lords now has the hated Employment—Tebbitt—Bill. Our job in Opposition is to ensure that we keep that Employment Bill and other obnoxious Bills that attack our working-class constituents as far away from the Government as possible.
One way in which to achieve that is to use the Tory rebels who are against the Bill. By getting all our votes together in the Lobby we can defeat the Government and, keeep the Bill going here. We hope that it will then carry on and the Employment Bill can be kept out for another week or fortnight. In that way, we shall be serving our class.

Mr. Winnick: As I attend various meetings with my hon. Friend, I am familiar with his point of view, which I respect and understand. However, on occasions we must disagree, although I do so with great reluctance. I am not convinced that it would be possible to defeat the guillotine motion, but that is not the issue. The issue is that each of us, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, should make up his own mind. I find that it is impossible to join hon. Members in the Lobby today to oppose the motion.
My explanation is simple, and my hon. Friend may or may not agree with me. It is that the views of hon. Members opposing the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill are so diametrically opposed to mine about the future of Northern Ireland that I should find it impossible, in all honesty, to go into the same Lobby.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has done it before, on the Common Market.

Mr. Winnick: There are occasions, such as the Common Market, and, prior to the Common Market, the House of Lords measure, when different points of view are united against a Bill. They believed that it was right and proper to act jointly, because, although they had different reasons for so doing, they were united in believing that that legislation was unnecessary. I do not believe that the same is true of the Northern Ireland Bill.

Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman not be convinced that many of us who want integration want it primarily—or if not primarily at least as one of the reasons—because we want to safeguard the minority community in Northern Ireland, which I believe is what the hon. Gentleman wants?

Mr. Winnick: I hope that what I am about to say will satisfy the hon. Gentleman that that is one of the reasons why I cannot vote with him tonight.
Those who oppose the Bill are divided largely into two groups. There are those who want Stormont back, and their only regret is that Stormont was abolished. When the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)

described what happened during the past 50 years in Northern Ireland, while Stormont existed, he did not give all the reasons that led to Stormont being so discredited that a Conservative Government introduced direct rule.
Then there are those, such as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who do not necessarily argue for Stormont or for devolution as such, but for integration. That view is opposed to my own. I take the view that integration is no more an answer to the problems of Northern Ireland than the revival and restoration of Stormont. Both views are so different from mine that I cannot bring myself to vote with them.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that although he does not agree with the Bill—and I think he is saying that he does not agree with the guillotine—what will influence his decision in the Lobby is not his view on the rightness of the issue, but the company that he may keep there? Is that not a rather strange view to take?

Mr. Winnick: I am coming to the answer to the hon. Lady's question.
The view that has been taken for so long—indeed, for more than 100 years—by the opponents of the Bill has caused much damage and bloodshed. It is not difficult to imagine some of the same hon. Gentlemen 100 years ago staunchly opposing any form of home rule for Ireland, and refusing to recognise that Ireland needed solutions quite different from those on the mainland. It would not be too difficult to imagine the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), long before he opposed votes for women, or payment for Members of Parliament, or any move to alleviate the lot of the working class in this country, getting up 80 or 100 years ago and opposing any concept of home rule, saying that if home rule were granted to Ireland it would be the end of the world.
That view, which is illustrated by those who oppose the Bill, has been responsible in many ways for the situation in Northern Ireland, which I deplore. It has been responsible for helping terrorism and, before that, for causing bloodshed, when people gave up any hope of the House of Commons resolving the problems of Ireland in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people who live there in both the North and the South.
It is for those reasons that I make a distinction—even if some of my hon. Friends, with whom I normally agree, do not—between the House of Lords and Common Market legislation and this Bill. That type of view, which is so much opposed to this modest measure—which, as I said earlier, will do no good—has been responsible for what I have described in Northern Ireland. Of course I respect the sincerity of right hon. and hon. Members who hold that view, because they are acting in what they believe are the best interests of the United Kingdom. In many respects they want to roll back all that has happened in Ireland during the past 50 or 60 years. They imagine that, somehow, home rule can be thrown away as if we were debating the situation 100 years ago.
I have given the matter a great deal of thought. One does not normally give a great deal of thought to timetable motions. It depends on which side one sits. When one is in Opposition, it is quite simple. Three-line Whip or no three-line Whip, one opposes for obvious reasons. If one is on the Government side, one supports the Government.
However, I have reached my conclusion. I may be wrong, but, having reached that conclusion, I shall abstain tonight.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I shall be brief and speak entirely about the guillotine motion.
Perhaps I might suggest to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that his concept of duty as a member of the Opposition is a mistaken one—not according to my view, but according to that of the late Aneurin Bevan. When I was a very new Member, I congratulated him on the speech that he made opposing a Conservative guillotine. He said "I hope that you will speak as strongly against a guillotine when my party brings one in, regardless of the content of the motion concerned, because it is extremely important that every Opposition should oppose every Government timetable motion. Otherwise they will start to seek them too often, if they feel they are getting them too easily". If my words will not persuade the hon. Gentleman, perhaps he will be convinced by the example and words of the late Mr. Bevan.
I had not intended to speak in this debate, still less to urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion. However, although I have always opposed the Bill, and therefore the guillotine, I perceived quite clearly the Government's reasons for it, and why it might be not altogether unreasonable for them to seek to curtail debate on future amendments and new clauses. However, I am appalled by the way in which the Government have set about it. They are not merely curtailing debate; they are killing it. The cynicism shown by the Government in both the content of the motion and the arguments that have so far been put in its favour are quite deplorable.
We are told that the previous debates over many hours have been obstructive, that people have spoken for a long time, and that they have been filibustering. Assuming that that is true, was it not apparent a little earlier? Could that not have been deduced from the nature of the speeches after fewer hours, and this motion brought forward at an earlier stage, so that more time could be given to the remaining clauses? It might also have been possible for the closure to be moved and accepted at an earlier stage in each debate. Now, after what the Government consider an unduly long period on the earlier part of the Bill, we are to have one day only for the remainder of the Committee stage—with all the amendments, some of which have already been accepted, and new clauses—and one day only for the remaining stages.
What the Government propose does not curtail debate; it effectively destroys it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) pointed out in an intervention, there are a number of serious amendments, and in the course of the debates many differing points of view have been put forward both by representatives of Northern Ireland and other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides. The only people who have been wholly absent and shown no interest are members of the Labour Party. In these circumstances it seems that if the Government are punishing the Tory opponents of the Bill by trying to gag them, secure in the knowledge that in this enterprise they have the support of the Opposition.
As the Bill was brought forward late in the Session for such an important Bill and the closures were moved

relatively late, for if there were filibustering, the closures could have been moved and would have been accepted earlier. The fact that the closure could not thus be moved is, in itself, evidence that the debates were real. Therefore, the fact that the Government did not seek to move a closure earlier is evidence that they regarded the debates as realistic.
The pattern of behaviour suggests to me that the Government are determined to get the Bill through regardless. Their tactic seems to be to give the rebels a run and then kill the debate on the rest of the Bill by a deplorable conspiracy between the two front Benches.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Since the downfall of the Sunningdale Executive in 1974, successive Governments, Labour and Conservative, have tried to find a way to restore self-government to Northern Ireland. They have failed to do so.
The Secretary of State's attempt is worthy of support. There is no guarantee that it will be successful. That is one reason why I have not taken part in the debates so far. Had I and my hon. Friends taken part in those debates we would have succeeded in implementing the wishes of those hon. Members who are trying to kill the Bill. The argument that we have not taken part because we were uninterested is not valid. I am interested in the Bill.
If you, Mr. Speaker, had been in the House and listened to the cross-talk between the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) you would have been wholly convinced that the one has just as vivid an imagination as the other. The hon. Member for Antrim, North sees his bogy men in Dublin. The right hon. Member for Down, South sees his bogy men in the Foreign Office. They hold the belief that there are men in the Republic and in the Foreign Office who are intent on dragging Northern Ireland into the Republic. I do not believe that that is valid.
You were a Member of the House at the time, Mr. Speaker, although you may not have been in your august position, and I have read the reports of the debates and I have re-read the constitutional report from Northern Ireland. The arguments that were used at the constitutional Convention in Stormont were almost word for word those used subsequently by Opposition Members. Those Conservatives who were opposed to the Secretary of Stale for Northern Ireland when he was the Secretary of State for Employment are the same Conservatives who are opposing the Bill tooth and nail today. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has been consistent. He was opposed to the Sunningdale agreement and to the abolition of Stormont. He has always put forward the argument for full integration. Although I disagree with his arguments, I accept his sincerity
As has been said before, the Bill is perhaps the last chance for Northern Ireland. There have been so many last chances for Northern Ireland. However, the Bill should at least be given the opportunity to see whether it can make political progress in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North has shortened my speech considerably. He said that the passing of the Bill will not be welcomed by extreme Republicans in Ireland. It will not be welcomed by the Provisional IRA which has already voiced its bitter opposition. It will certainly not be welcomed by the present Taoiseach of the Republic. The fear that the passing of the Bill will break the links that


bind Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom and bring about a Republic has been deliberately built up, particularly by the right hon. Member for Down, South and his parliamentary colleagues, and it is not true.
I am the only hon. Member who was a member of the power-sharing Sunningdale Executive in 1974. I can honestly say that it is only that type of Government that has any hope of succeeding in Northern Ireland. That is why I support the Bill. I should like to see Sunningdale mark II. I should like to see a Bill that has all the guarantees of Sunningdale written into it. The Bill is much weaker than I want it to be. However, it is a step. It will create a forum in Northern Ireland where elected representatives of the Northern Irish people will be able to meet and discuss their differences. After a long period without the opportunity to govern themselves, the people of Northern Ireland will be able to find the ways, means and accommodation to do so.
The passing of the Bill will not lead to a cessation of violence. I am only too well aware that during the conflict in the Falkland Islands in the past few weeks the tragedy in Northern Ireland has continued. To be burnt to death by an Exocet missile in the Falklands is just as bad as being burnt to death by a petrol bomb thrown by a child on the streets of Derry.
The people of Northern Ireland are desperately hoping that concrete steps will be taken to set up an Assembly in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland people will then decide whether devolved power will be transferred to the Assembly of Stormont.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a valid point when he said that if the predictions of the election results are accurate the Unionist parties of various shades should comprise the majority in Northern Ireland. We have already seen how, in 1974, when hysteria was built up, the Sunningdale executive was tragically defeated. No doubt the same thing can be done in this election. The right hon. Member for Down, South said that, because of the imposition of the guillotine, he would not be able to tell the hon. Member for Birkenhead why that could not be so. They can meet in the Corridor or elsewhere in the House or he can write a letter to say why that argument is not valid.
I have in the past, both in Northern Ireland and in the House, taken decisions that were not wholly popular with everyone. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) that the Bill goes some way to support the Labour Party's policy statement, with which I am in full accord.
I should have hoped that the Opposition could have supported in the Lobby the Bill and the guillotine motion. I have never before voted for a guillotine in the House. I am open to correction, but I cannot remember doing so. I find such motions distasteful. However, I find even more distasteful the people who are creating such opposition to the Bill.
I should like to reinforce what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and others. There seems to be an undercurrent among Conservative Members, who are concerned not so much about the Bill as with their animosity and hostility towards the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] I notice the immediate reaction

that that remark brings. I am inclined to say that if the cap fits, wear it. Why are Conservative Members getting so excited if there is not a grain of truth in what I say?
Last Sunday I received a telephone call from a reporter of some distinction in Ireland. He does not believe every story that he is told, but he told me that he had had a tip that he suspected came from Downing Street to the effect that the Secretary of State was being removed from office in a reshuffle. All those rumours are designed to cause unease and confusion and to give support to those who have shown such venomous opposition to the Bill.

Mr. Porter: I am not one of those who bears animosity towards anyone, least of all towards the hon. Gentleman. However, perhaps he will address his mind to the evidence that we have heard from the various factions in the Unionist Party, from extreme Republicans and from the Provisional IRA. On the evidence, if representatives of those bodies are elected to the Assembly there is no possibility that they will agree among themselves—particularly on a 70 per cent. basis—so that they can put forward proposals to the Secretary of State. We fear not the passing of the Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a very long intervention. Many hon. Members hope to catch my eye and the debate will finish shortly after 7.5 pm.

Mr. Porter: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Does the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) agree with me?

Mr. Fitt: I wish to limit my remarks. The hon. Gentleman is saying that if we create an Assembly and if agreement cannot be found it will lead to a continuation of the conflict. That is the gospel of despair. People say that they do not know when the right time will come to take positive steps to create the political structures that will lead to a cessation of violence. However, it is our duty to create the conditions that will bring the political impasse to an end and thus lead to a cessation of violence. That is what the Secretary of State is trying to do.
Although it is against my political instincts to support guillotine motions, I shall happily go into the Lobby tonight, together with any hon. Member who wishes to accompany me, to support the Secretary of State.

Mr. John Roper: I do not intend to detain the House for long. I must admit that, like the Leader of the House, I have not attended all the Committee's sittings. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) have attended almost all of them. In c. 989 of Hansard of 16 June, my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby explained her attitude towards the protracted debate on the Bill's early clauses. She said that the filibuster had been "long and elegant" and she was right to use those words.
We have said that we should like to see the Bill on the statute book, and we voted for it on Second Reading. We recognise that those who represent Northern Ireland have a particular interest in the Bill's details and that that also applies to some of those Conservative Members who have taken part in the debates. However, as the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said, it would


appear that opposition to the Bill has sometimes been mixed with opposition to the Secretary of State's general political stance.

Mr. Budgen: Nonsense.

Mr. Roper: I attended the debate two weeks ago and listened to the venom expressed by Conservative Members. That venom made the nature of the opposition to the Secretary of State and his colleagues quite clear.
Obviously, we would have preferred a more generous timetable motion. We agree with what has been said by the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) about the introduction of the motion. It would almost certainly have been better to have introduced it a week ago and for three days to have been allocated for debate on the Bill's remaining clauses. For example, clause 5 is particularly important but, as a result of the timetable motion, it will not receive the attention that it deserves.
Representations have been made to the Leader of the House about the relatively limited time allotted in the motion.

Viscount Cranbourne: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that during our debates on schedule 1, frequent reference was made to the importance of clause 5, and that various points that could have been discussed in the context of that schedule were deliberately avoided by hon. Members on both sides of the argument because they were waiting to raise them on clause 5? It now seems as though we shall not have the opportunity to debate that clause fully.

Mr. Roper: I just referred to the importance of clause 5. However, in rather less than an hour we shall have to make a choice. A genuine complaint can be made about the meanness of the motion, but given what has been said and the fact that the Bill will not reach the statute book unless a timetable motion is introduced, I recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends should support the Government in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The House listened with considerable interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). He must be among the convincing and powerful of the spokesmen for the minority community in Northern Ireland, and he gave a powerful argument for supporting the motion.
Of course I appreciate that there are many disadvantages to a timetable motion. Many of them have been referred to. Perhaps the most notable disadvantage is that the House will not discuss several clauses and amendments at any length. I say to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends with whom I disagree that it is particularly distressing for those of us who support the motion that they will be directly affected by its consequences. However, I am absolutely certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to introduce it. We have a choice: we can lose the Bill, save it at a disproportionate cost, or accept a timetable motion. Faced with that choice I am certain that we should accept a timetable motion. It is desirable to recognise what has been happening. Those who have attended the debates or who have read the Official Report will immediately understand that we face an orchestrated, concerted and deliberate attempt to frustrate the Bill's passage. The instrument that has been chosen is the prolongation of

discussion in the hope that the passage of time will destroy the Government's resolve. I do not complain about that. I fully concede that a filibuster is a proper parliamentary tactic. It is equally proper, however, for a Government who are determined to bring forward a measure to impose a timetable. One cannot allow one without the other.
The Opposition often use such filibustering tactics, and I must concede to my hon. and right hon. Friends a similar right. I do not grumble because the tactics employed against the Bill have come from behind me rather than in front, but I grumble when hon. Members complain that they are not being fairly treated.
There are disadvantages associated with any timetable motion. Clauses and amendments will go undiscussed, but who is responsible for that? Surely those who have used the process of scrutiny to delay the Bill and deliberately to kill it are responsible. Among the most assidious of my hon. Friends who have tried to kill the Bill by the prolongation of discussion is my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). Normally he is noted for the conciseness of his speeches, but not this time. An analysis of the Official Report revealed that in Committee he made no fewer than 16 major speeches and 97 interventions. We must be realistic about these matters. Hon. Members who make 97 interventions are in no position to grumble when a timetable motion is imposed. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has been the most talkative of my hon. Friends, his example has been matched by many of his colleagues. It is extraordinary that, on the first day in Committee, we spent more than 6½ hours on points of order before we even reached clause 1. Not one Division has been unmoved. Dilatory motions have succeeded one another, and the result was a filibuster. Those who are opposed to the proposed curtailment of discussion have no one to blame but themselves.
The other major argument that is advanced against the motion is that this is a constitutional Bill. But that in no way excludes it from the operation of a timetable motion. I leave aside the issue of precedent—there are many good precedents—and advance the much more powerful argument that on 10 May on Second Reading the House supported the Bill with a massive majority of 262. In so doing the House declared its approval of the principle of the Bill. The House must now decide whether a small group of 20 or 30 hon. Members has any right to veto and frustrate the freely declared wishes of the majority of hon. Members. That is the constitutional principle that is at stake. When one realises the true constitutional position, one realises the desirability of supporting this motion.
We have three choices. We can let the Bill die, we can save it at disproportionate cost by sacrificing Government legislation or—does my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West wish to intervene?

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be grossly unfair other hon. Members who are waiting to be called, if the hon. Gentleman were to intervene.

Mr. Hogg: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker. That would have been my hon. Friend's ninety-ninth or one hundredth intervention, which is five or six too many.
The choice is either to support the timetable motion or to let the Bill die. If we do the latter we shall allow a small group of Members to veto the declared will of the House, which would not be right.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: May I assure the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and the House that we who oppose the Bill, and therefore this motion, have done so on public and not private grounds? Instead of listening to rumours and reading newspaper accounts, the right hon. Gentleman should consider those hon. Members who have taken a stand against the Bill. He will find that they are not likely to be indulging in a vendetta against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as he alleged. Indeed, some of us supported my right hon. Friend on earlier legislation that was intensely controversial within the Conservative Party.
On Second Reading I said:
My right hon. Friend should not, by his understandable eagerness for his measure, divide his party and, what matters more, the country, on both sides of the sea."—[Official Report, 10 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 492.]
I begged my right hon. Friend to emulate the statesmanship of his predecessors in a home rule measure in 1914. There is, however, more resemblance between the Bill that this motion seeks to expedite and the second home rule Bill of 1893, because it too provided for extensive but partial legislative devolution with continued representation at Westminster. In reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who gave us the ritual statistics, on that measure 459 speeches were delivered in favour of it and 938 were delivered against. It occupied 210 hours in the House of Commons. Have we really imposed an excessive delay upon this Bill?
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is correct. There is ample precedent for guillotining a constitutional Bill. One such precedent—a bad one—was the guillotine imposed by the present Leader of the Opposition on the Scotland and Wales Bill. The right hon. Member for Mansfield said that he did not rebel against his own party and that he finds the spectacle surprising. I do not know why it should be surprising for such an experienced member of the Labour Party—

Mr. Concannon: The hon. Gentleman must not degrade me. I did not say that I have never voted against my party. If that gets back to my constituency, I shall be in trouble.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should express such astonishment. I recall that a Labour Member, Mr. Lomas, who is no longer with us and whom I miss, partly because of our regimental association, said that he would not vote for the Labour Government on the guillotine motion proposed by the present Leader of the Opposition. He said that his loyalty was to the United Kingdom. So there is a conflict of loyalty in the House today. Right hon. and hon. Members must decide in conscience where lies the higher loyalty.
There are precedents for the timetable motion, but what seems to me without precedent—I would agree with the adjective "unique" that was applied by the right hon. Member for Mansfield—is for the guillotine to fall upon the necks of Government supporters whose opposition to

the Bill is firmly based on the Northern Ireland policy that was declared at the general election in the manifesto of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I know that my right hon. Friend will say that before the words in the manifesto about
one or more elected regional councils
there are the magic words
in the absence of devolved government",
but my right hon. Friend cannot really say that there is a chance of devolution when we hear, every time there is a debate in the House, the opinions expressed by Unionist Members of different types of Unionism and contrast those views with the form of devolution upon which not only my right hon. Friend but also the House would insist. That was apparent at the time the House spurned the majority report of the Northern Ireland constitutional Convention. It is even clearer today.
The Assembly will come into existence. Politicians are people who observe the French maxim that the absent are wrong. They do not want to be left out to leave the field to their opponents. If I may be so offensive, the Assembly will be a locomotive which will haul a considerable gravy train. The Assembly may come into existence, but it will not do what my right hon. Friends hope. Even if it refrains from the bitterness and even the physical violence that disfigured the first Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland constitutional Convention, it will not do anything for the security and stability of the Province or the employment and prosperity of its people. It will be more likely to give the impression that conditions are not such as to attract investment and foreign capital.
Sunningdale was mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). It was after Sunningdale that violence markedly increased. Why do we hurry the Bill? [Interruption.] A message has been given to me which says "Can you sit down?" I am not sure that I can sit down just yet. Why hurry a Bill which perpetuates sectarian politics? Why hurry a Bill which gives no encouragement to the many Roman Catholics who favour the Union to favour it more openly?
The debate on the appropriate amendments and new clauses should be longer so that the Secretary of State may rethink his position. It was alleged that we were not open to reason and that we have sought no agreement or accommodation. I suggested humbly to my right hon. Friend that if his Assembly could be turned in the direction of the regional council mentioned in our general election manifesto that would be very helpful to his hon. Friends. But he told us in Committee that he had made his private inquiries and that the result of those inquiries justified his virtual tearing up of the relevant part of our general election pledge.
I shall draw my speech to a close and considerably truncate my remarks. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would have been better able to justify shortening the proceedings had he not earlier in Committee ruled out the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) about a referendum. That would really have tested whether it be true that the people of Northern Ireland would welcome the proposals contained in the Bill.
My right hon. Friend's impetuosity is endearing but dangerous. Stability is not to be achieved by hyperkinetic Ministers insisting that something must be done, however futile or fantastic. The loyal and law-abiding people of Northern Ireland will be perturbed and flagging terrorist hopes revived by the recurring spectacle of political


initiative. The impression given by the itch for initiatives and solutions is of a lack of confidence, a weakness of will, a lukewarmness towards the Union, an unwillingness to govern as though in fact as well as in law Northern Ireland were an integral part of the United Kingdom, and the appeasement of foreign powers.
The terrorists must say "With Brits like these and Bills like these, they may yet be blasted out of Ireland." So the terrorism goes on taking its toll of life, limb and hope.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is hoped that the concluding speeches will begin at 6.50 pm.

Mr. William Ross: The Leader of the House, in opening the debate, said that the guillotine was necessary. I dispute that because, as the Government were able to move the closure whenever they needed it, no guillotine is necessary.
I find equally unconvincing the Labour Party attitude expressed by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). Since the purpose of the official Opposition is to restrict Government business I find much more to my liking the views put forward by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who set out the true position with brevity and clarity.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), whom I consider to be the cleverest, most devious and most dangerous Republican of all, welcomed the Bill. That for me is sufficient reason to be against what the Bill contains.I draw that to the attention of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who was so anxious to attack the view taken by my right hon. and hon. Friends and me over the talks between the sovereign Governments.
I should like, for the record, to read what we proposed to the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister at that time. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said:
We would respectfully remind you of your repeated assertions that the internal affairs of the United Kingdom and all its parts are exclusively a matter for this country and for its Parliament and Government, and we regret that the Dublin meeting and the communiqué will be widely misinterpreted as conflicting with those assertions.
I find nothing there that conflicts with my attitude as an Unionist, nor do I find anything with which I would disagree in the list of subjects that we put before the Prime Minister:
1. Arrangements for extradition from the Republic of persons charged with serious offences in the United Kingdom.
I should have thought that any Unionist would have been in favour of extradition and of seeking it by all means. It appears now that one of the larger Unionist parties is no longer of that view.
2. The removal from the constitution of the Republic of the claim to include in its territory a part of the United Kingdom.
3. A review of the citizenship laws of the two countries with a view to eliminating (A) the anomalous position whereby nationals of the Republic possess the franchise in the United Kingdom … and (B) those provisions of the Republic's citizenship law which afford dual citizenship to unduly extended categories of persons.
4. Delimitation of the international frontier in the Foyle estuary and Carlingford Lough and outwards to the two hundred mile or median limits.
I note that the owners of the vessels that were sunk still have not got it right.
The document continues:

5. Modification of the 'Common Travel Area' with a view to

(A) The enforcement of U.K. and E.E.C. law on movement and immigration and
(B) Better identification and verification of persons moving between the two states.

6. Improved co-operation in the maintenance of customs and security surveillance on the common frontier.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ross: I have no time to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have promised that I would finish soon.
I should have thought that the views that we put forward at that time could be supported by any Unionist. If there must be discussions between the two sovereign Governments, let them deal with the problems that really affect us, above all the problem of extradition.

Mr. John Silkin: It is unusual for the shadow Leader of the House to wind up on a timetable motion rather than to introduce it. However, this is also an unusual, and perhaps unique, occasion. I cannot remember an occasion in the nearly 20 years that I have been in the House when a Government have introduced a guillotine purely against their followers. That is a little unusual, or possibly unique.
I make no complaint about that. Governments are entitled to get their business. Why should I complain? I am neutral in this affair, compared to those who have used their powers of eloquence and arguments in some 97 interventions to try to stop their Government from getting legislation of which they disapprove. That is respectable, responsible and well within parliamentary precedent. It is one of the things that makes Parliament interesting and exciting.
In my present position I have opposed four guillotine motions. The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) recalled the late Aneurin Bevan's fine words. If I take slight exception to what is happening it is that the guillotine was introduced later in the proceedings than the four other guillotine motions that I had the honour to oppose. In other words, the Government introduced the guillotine a little too early in those four cases. I know that with few, or perhaps no, exceptions, only my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench intervened from the Opposition side during the long debates on the Bill. It seems that the guillotine has come later rather than earlier.
The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said that the Government had three choices. The first was to let the Bill disappear and accept defeat. The second was to see that the Bill got precedence over other legislation that the Government thought was important. The third was to introduce a timetable motion. With respect, the hon. Gentleman's second choice does not work. There is no other legislation that would be displaced. The Leader of the House and I see eye to eye on that.
That is the argument that I put to my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I agree that we must strongly oppose the Employment Bill, as we did on the guillotine motion and throughout the other proceedings. However, because the Employment Bill has been timetabled, there is no hope of our being able to hold it up. It is cut and dried. I cannot believe that this Government, of all Governments, would scrap the Employment Bill in order to let the Northern Ireland Bill go through.
That is why I say to the hon. Member for Grantham that that choice is not on. Therefore, there are only two possibilities. One is that the guillotine should be allowed to lapse, in which case, as the Leader of the House properly and honestly told us, the Bill would disappear. The other possibility is that the Bill should be guillotined, in which case the legislation would come back to the Floor of the House after it had gone to the other place. If the Opposition opposed the Bill, we would not prevent the progress of the Employment Bill.
I cannot believe that it is the duty of the Opposition to support the Government. We cannot support the guillotine. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield made an important and convincing case why we should not oppose the progress of the guillotine motion. It is unusual and unique. Our attitude to the Bill is not one of wild enthusiasm, but we are prepared to see that it has a run. It is in that context that I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that the best course for the Opposition at this stage is neither to support the motion nor to oppose it, but to abstain.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I am certain that my hon. Friend the Leader of the House will agree when I say that no Minister likes to stand at the Dispatch Box and impose a guillotine. That is always one of the more uncomfortable processes in the House, no more so than when one is proposing a guillotine that has the effect of curtailing the time for debate for one's hon. Friends. Therefore, it was an enormous disappointment to me when I had to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends in Government and in my party to allow a guillotine motion on the Bill.
I thought that I had tried to meet a number of points early in the Bill. On the first evening when we had spent a great deal of time on points of order and on what at other times would have been purely a procedural motion on the order of the clauses and schedules, I thought that I helped by conceding that we would make the notes on clauses readily available to my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members so that we could try to expedite the proceedings.
I also recognise that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has said only too forcefully that to introduce such a Bill at this time of the year is asking for trouble. I accept that. I shall try to explain why I had to be prepared to take that risk.
I have had to recognise throughout the long discussions on the Bill that the purpose of my hon. Friends, about which I make no complaint, was to seek to kill the Bill. They are perfectly entitled to take that view. In many respects they have been successful in that they have taken up much time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) suggested that we could have brought the guillotine in sooner. I do not know where he can have been during those late nights to believe that that option was open to us. If we had moved the guillotine motion earlier, we would have met just as many objections. However, that was a matter of judgment. We had hoped against hope that we would not need a guillotine. That was why, night after

night, we asked many Conservative Members to stay in the Chamber until dawn so that we might seek to get the Bill through in any way without a guillotine.
I recognise also that Northern Irish Bills, or Irish Bills, as they used to be, are always controversial matters. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the original concept of the guillotine and the closure came during the last century because of Irish legislation. We are repeating some of that today.
I should not have advised my Cabinet colleagues or the Government to go ahead with the Bill at this stage in the Session without an enormous amount of thought and an equal degree of belief that the Bill was necessary. I could not do it earlier. I arrived in the Province in September when the hunger strike was coming to an end and when feelings were running extremely high. I had a whole range of discussions with the political parties there. I recognised that there was no easy solution or answer to the problems of Northern Ireland. We have had a suggestion of that in the debate this afternoon where the differences between the Democratic Unionists, the Official Unionists, the SDLP and so on have been exposed. There is also a degree of difference within each of those parties. When people say to me "Nearly everyone is against your measures," that conceals an enormous difference in the range of opinions within the political parties.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has opposed the Bill as hard as anyone. I congratulate him on his ability. He opposes it on completely different grounds from those of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The hon. Member for Antrim, North and his party are in favour of devolution, but they want their own type of devolution. The right hon. Member for Down, South is an integrationist. They have joined together for the purpose of defeating the Bill.
There is no one better aware than I that violence, the economy and political stability are the pressing problems of the Province. The right hon. Member for Down, South said that the Bill would cause predictable and certain death. What is certain is that there have been more than 2,000 deaths from terrorism during the past years of violence. It is my duty—I cannot think of any way in which I should want to upset my own colleagues on the Back Benches unless I believed this implicitly—as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to do more than allow that toll to continue.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that the Bill is no certain curb. It can only make a modest attempt to put politics in the place of violence or the vacuum in Northern Ireland. I cannot conceive why anyone in the House should be against that. The right hon. Member for Down, South is entitled to his view that the Bill will make things worse rather than better. That can only be his opinion. The Government's view is that the Bill offers a hope—perhaps an uncertain or qualified hope—by which Northern Ireland may move from its present miseries.
The Bill puts firmly and squarely on the people of Northern Ireland the responsibility for filling the political vacuum that direct rule caused and allowed to continue. It provides an opportunity for an elected Assembly to be set up where Members can test their opinions one against another. There is no way at the moment by which the opinions of one section of the community can be tested


against those of another section in an Assembly or any democratic institution. I believe that that is an essential prerequisite before moving towards greater devolution.
Northern Ireland is not like other parts of the United Kingdom. There are the two traditions and the two identities. There are those who identify with the united Ireland approach and the majority who identify equally strongly with the United Kingdom. If we do not recognise that those two identities create differences that are not present in the rest of the United Kingdom, I do not believe that we have any right to suggest that Northern Ireland can and should only be governed in line with that which is possible in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The debates have concentrated on some of the hazards and problems of the Bill. I suggest to those hon. Members who have complained that there may not be time for their amendments to be discussed—that includes the hon. Member for Antrim, North—that, if we concentrate on those amendments which are constructive rather than on those which are destructive we may find that we can have proper and useful debates until 1 am Thursday morning and that that will provide ample time.
I wish that we could have had an agreement to timetable the debates without the need for a guillotine motion, but I do not believe that that has ever been a feasible proposition. When I talked to right hon. and hon. Members and suggested that six or seven days would have been a fair allocation of time, they suggested, rather jokingly, that they needed 15, 16 or 20 days. I have never believed that there was a manner in which that problem could be resolved. Not to have gone ahead with the Bill would have done less than justice to the continuing consequences of the present position in Northern Ireland.
I believe that the time has come for the Government to show their resolve to get the Bill on the statute book. That is an important factor in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Antrim, South says that there is reference in the White Paper to the effect of the Bill on security and other matters. The uncertainty that prevails in Northern Ireland about whether we shall proceed with the Bill is a factor which must be taken into account. I cannot promise that the measures the Government are putting forward will be crowned with success. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland—to all those who have died as a result of terrorism, to those who suffer, to those who wish to see the unity of the United Kingdom—to push the Bill through and give Northern Ireland the chance of political stability and responsibility that it has not had for a number of years.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 44.

Division No 231]
[7.8 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bevan, David Gilroy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alton, David
Blackburn, John


Arnold, Tom
Blaker, Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Bonsor, Slr Nicholas


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Bowden, Andrew


Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bradley, Tom


Banks, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bright, Graham


Beith, A. J.
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Best, Keith
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)





Browne, John (Winchester)
Hogg, HonDouglas (Gr'th'm)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hooson, Tom


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Horam, John


Buck, Antony
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bulmer, Esmond
Howell, RtHonD. (G'ldf'd)


Butcher, John
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Howells, Geraint


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cartwright, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Irvine, Bryant Godman


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Chapman, Sydney
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Churchill, W. S.
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillhead)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby


Clegg, Sir Walter
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cockeram, Eric
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Cope, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Cormack, Patrick
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Corrie, John
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Costain, Sir Albert
King, Rt Hon Tom


Crawshaw, Richard
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Critchley, Julian
Knox, David


Crouch, David
Lamont, Norman


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lang, Ian


Dorrell, Stephen
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dover, Denshore
Lee, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dunn, James A.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Dykes, Hugh
Luce, Richard


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lyell, Nicholas


Eggar, Tim
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Elliott, Sir William
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McCrindle, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
Macfarlane, Neil


Eyre, Reginald
MacGregor, John


Faith, Mrs Sheila
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fitt, Gerard
McNally, Thomas


Fookes, Miss Janet
McQuarrie, Albert


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Madel, David


Fox, Marcus
Magee, Bryan


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Major, John


Freud, Clement
Marland, Paul


Fry, Peter
Marlow, Antony


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Ginsburg, David
Mates, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawby, Ray


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodlad, Alastair
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mayhew, Patrick


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grant, John (Islington C)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moore, John


Hannam, John
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Mudd, David


Hayhoe, Barney
Myles, David


Heddle, John
Neale, Gerrard


Henderson, Barry
Needham, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hicks, Robert
Newton, Tony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Normanton, Tom


Hill, James
Nott, Rt Hon John






Ogden, Eric
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


O'Halloran, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Onslow, Cranley
Squire, Robin


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stainton, Keith


Osborn, John
Stanley, John


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Steen, Anthony


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stevens, Martin


Parris, Matthew
Stewart,A (E Renfrewshire)


Patten,Christopher (Bath)
Stradling Thomas,J.


Patten,John (Oxford)
Tapsell, Peter


Pattie,Geoffrey
Taylor, Teddy (S'.end E)


Pawsey, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Penhaligon, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Percival,Sir Ian
Thomas,Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Pink, R.Bonner
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pitt, William Henry
Thompson, Donald


Pollock,Alexander
Thornton, Malcolm


Porter,Barry
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Trippier, David


Prior, Rt Hon James
Trotter, Neville


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rathbone, Tim
Viggers,Peter


Renton, Tim
Wainwright, R.Colne V)


Rhodes James, Robert
Wakeham, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ridley,Hon Nicholas
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Ridsdale,Sir Julian
Wall, Sir Patrick


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Warren, Kenneth


Roper, John
Wellbeloved, James


Rossi, Hugh
Wells, Bowen


Rost, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Royle, Sir Anthony
Wheeler, John


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Whitney, Raymond


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wickenden, Keith


Sandelson, Neville
Wiggin, Jerry


Scott, Nicholas
Wigley, Dafydd


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Williams,D.(Montgomery)


Shelton, William(Streatham)
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Shersby, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Silvester, Fred
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Sims, Roger
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Smith, Dudley



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Speed, Keith
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Speller, Tony
Mr. Carol Mather.


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)



NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Moate, Roger


Budgen, Nick
Molyneaux, James


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cranborne, Viscount
Parry, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Dalyell, Tam
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dixon, Donald
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Dunlop, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Farr, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Shepherd, Richard


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Skinner, Dennis


Gorst, John
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Hastings, Stephen
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kerr, Russell
Stoddart, David


Kilfedder, James A.
Stokes, John


Knight, Mrs Jill
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Latham, Michael
Tilley, John


Lawrence, Ivan
Walker, B. (Perth)





White, Frank R.
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Christopher Murphy and



Mr. William Ross.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee, Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The remaining proceedings in Committee on the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the following Table:—


TABLE


Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


Clause 3 (remaining proceedings); Clause 4
6.30 pm


Clause 5
9 pm


Remaining proceedings
One hour after midnight

(2) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and on that day—

(a) the proceedings on Consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock; and
(b) the proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after midnight.

(3) Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Proceedings on going into Committee

2. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

3. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Order of consideration

4. No Motion shall be moved to change the order in which the Bill is to be considered in Committee or on Consideration.

Dilatory Motions

5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

6.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for three hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of three hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of three hours.

Private business

7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

8.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;


(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

10. Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

12. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Northern Ireland Bill.

The Middle East

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Francis Pym): I welcome this opportunity to open a debate on the Middle East, an area of the world which always demands close attention and which has in recent weeks been an arena for yet further large-scale conflict.
War is always a matter for the gravest regret. It is more particularly so in this area, where there is an ever-present risk of escalation into a wider conflict into which much of the rest of the world, including the superpowers, could be dragged.
Although we are not the nearest of our European partners to the Middle East in geographical terms, none has enjoyed closer links to the countries in the area than we have. These are links which we continue to value, and which give added reason for our deep and legitimate anxiety about the problems of the Middle East. All British Governments have taken the view that peace and stability in the Middle East are important national and international interests, as well as being essential for the peoples of that troubled region.
Two major conflicts are currently in full swing: the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the Iran-Iraq war. I propose to look at these in turn, and to consider the implications of what has happened for progress towards peace in the long term.
Everyone has been shocked by the scale and intensity of the fighting in Lebanon, and the terrible casualties, particularly among the civilian population. There has been a severity about this war which many have felt very alarming. To me, the Israeli invasion represents a major setback to prospects for a lasting peace in the region.
Lebanon was torn apart in a bloody civil war six years ago, and has now been further battered by the present invasion. The news today is that serious fighting has again broken out between Israeli and Syrian forces east of Beirut, near the main Beirut-Damascus highway. I am not aware of any renewed fighting today in West Beirut.
What has Israel's action been designed to achieve? It is argued in justification of the Israeli invasion that it was a legitimate measure of self-defence. It is also suggested that a major Israeli objective has been to secure the establishment of a strengthened Lebanese Government capable of maintaining their authority throughout their territory. In addition, it appears that the destruction of the Palestine Liberation Organisation may be regarded as an objective in itself, and as a means of reducing the Palestinian problem and making it easier to deal with. I want to comment on each of these points in turn.
First, the Israelis have justified their invasion on the grounds of self-defence. Our attitude is clear, both on the legal right to self-defence and on the importance of the security of Israel. On the first, every State has the legal right to self-defence, and it must obviously be allowed to exercise it in practice where this proves necessary.
On the second, we are not and cannot be indifferent to the future of Israel, a democratic State with which we are closely linked by many ties of history and culture. Israel has the same unchallengeable right to exist in peace and in security, within recognised and guaranteed borders, as


every other State. In the Venice declaration, our European partners joined us in reaffirming this right and expressed their readiness to take part in concrete and binding international guarantees, including on the ground. But the fact remains that a State's exercise of the right to self-defence must be justified against the established legal criteria. It is a right to self-defence, and whatever action is taken must be in proportion to the threat.
Let us look for a moment at the background. After Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978, the United Nations set up a peacekeeping force, UNIFIL. This force was prevented by the Israelis from fully entering the area covered by its mandate, an area without which it could not possibly do its job. Nevertheless, after further border incidents for which all parties share the blame, President Reagan's representative, Mr. Habib, succeeded in the summer of 1981 in negotiating an effective ceasefire. For nine months this border was quiet, somewhat precariously, but nevertheless quiet. Then the quiet was broken by Israeli air raids. Only after these air raids was there artillery bombardment from the Lebanese side of the border. And it was this bombardment which was taken to serve as a pretext for the invasion.
I cannot accept that this background justifies a full-scale armed invasion. Nor does it justify the claim to cleanse an area of 25 miles or so of Lebanese territory. And even if it did, this professed objective would seem to bear little relation to the course that the Israeli armed forces have followed since, which has led them to the outskirts of Beirut.
Turning to the justification relating to the Government on the Lebanon, we certainly want to see Lebanon united under a strengthened central Government and at peace. If this were to be one result of the present conflict it would be a lasting benefit, albeit one that will have to be set against the extremely high costs in human lives and human suffering which have been incurred by the people of Lebanon. But a political settlement in the Lebanon, however desirable it may be, cannot justify an invasion by a neighbouring country. Nor is military action likely to produce a reliable answer to problems which require essentially a solution by political means.
It would be quite wrong for Israel to impose her own preferred political solution on Lebanon by armed force. And what is more, it would not work. Any settlement which was achieved under the shadow of the Israeli army could not last, because it would be seen by the Muslims in Lebanon, and by the Arab world generally, as imposed under duress.
If Israel is really interested in permitting the emergence of a more stable Lebanese political structure, she should withdraw her forces in accordance with Security Council resolution 509 and help to create the conditions that will make the free expression of the wishes of the Lebanese people possible.
There is also the justification that is related to the PLO. We recognise Israel's longing for security and understand her unwillingness to deal with the PLO while that organisation refuses to accept her existence and to renounce terrorism as a weapon in its armoury. But the scale of the Israeli invasion has been quite disproportionate to the objective of achieving security from terrorist attack. What is more, the destruction of the PLO's organisation in Beirut will not, in my view, enhance Israel's security.
Clearly Israel cannot destroy the entire Palestinian people. The PLO, whether we like it or not, enjoys widespread support among Palestinians throughout the Middle East. The destruction of the PLO's political structure will lead to frustration and despair—the very conditions in which extremists have always flourished.
The PLO leadership in Beirut are men who have tried to lead a disparate movement towards a diplomatic solution to their grievances. They may not always have done so consistently, but that has been their purpose. If they are routed, the diplomatic path will be discredited in the eyes of many young Palestinians, and I believe, even discarded by some. The destruction of the PLO in Beirut may provoke precisely what the Israelis and all of us most seek to avoid—which is a return to the extremism that produced the international terrorism of the early 1970s.
I have explained the Government's view that the Israeli invasion cannot be justified as a legitimate exercise of the inherent right of self-defence that Israel shares with all other States. It can be regarded only as a setback to the cause of peace in the Middle East. The problems of the Lebanon, and those which underlie the wider conflict between the Arabs and Israel, are made more rather than less complicated by the resort to arms. That makes it all the more necessary that we should add our weight to the search for an acceptable alternative. I assure the House that we shall do so. We do not delude ourselves that there are short cuts through the difficult terrain which I should now like to describe.
I shall deal first with the Palestinians. The crucial problem remains that of the Palestinians. Lebanon can bear witness to the fact that the Palestinian people will remain a factor for instability in the Middle East until their political aspirations can be met. The autonomy talks represent one approach to the problem of the political future of the Palestinians, but they have been dogged from the outset by disagreement both on what should be the ultimate objective of the autonomy process and on practical aspects of the powers to be granted to the Palestinians in the occupied territories.
We and our partners in Europe have always made it clear that we would not wish to undermine the efforts of the Camp David signatories to find a solution to the wider Palestinian problem. But we recognise that the autonomy process suffers from a further serious defect. It offers nothing to Palestinians outside the West Bank and Gaza. It cannot therefore be a long-term solution to the Palestinian question, unless it leads on to negotiations involving authentic Palestinian representatives.
The Government's view, which is shared by the other members of the Community remains that the Palestinian problem can be settled only by an overall peace settlement which takes account of the Palestinians' right to determine their future. However difficult it may seem—it seems more difficult now than before—it is as true now as before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon that this will have to be worked out in negotiations among all the interested parties, including Israel. The only territory in which an act of Palestinian self-determination could realistically be carried out is the territory of the West Bank and Gaza, which was occupied by Israel in the 1967 war. What would emerge on this territory would be for the Palestinians themselves to determine.
The options that are available to the Palestinians logically include that of a State, but the logic of self-determination points equally to the fact that other options


are also open. The important point would be that it should be an act of free choice, taken in the knowledge of the political realities of the region. The interests of the Palestinian people, once their legitimate rights had been recognised, would surely be for co-operation with their powerful neighbour Israel.
Several Israeli leaders have spoken of Jordan as providing a solution to the dispossession of the Palestinian people. The trouble with that idea is that neither the Palestinians nor the Jordanians are prepared to accept it.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Do the political realities of the region include, in my right hon. Friend's opinion, any existing Israeli settlements or any future settlements that might be put on the West Bank?

Mr. Pym: Yes, of course.
The Palestinians see their home as being on the West Bank of Jordan. Any negotiated settlement will have to take that into account, just as it will have to provide adequate guarantees for the security of Israel. A negotiated settlement that meets the aspirations of the Palestinian people—if it can ever be achieved—would provide a much sounder basis for a just and, therefore, lasting peace between Israel and Palestinians than the peace which Israel is attempting to impose by force of arms in the Lebanon and by its settlements policy on the West Bank. Those two principles—Palestinian rights and the Israeli right to security—remain as fundamental today as in June 1980 when they were affirmed in the Venice declaration. My main anxiety today is that we are further away now from the implementation of those principles than we were then.
I shall now deal with the Lebanon. The international community must now find effective means to ensure that a more secure future can be established for the people of the Lebanon. In my view, a strengthened peacekeeping presence is likely to be essential. Several possibilities are being considered, including a strengthened role for UNIFIL and a new multinational force outside the United Nations system.
UNIFIL's mandate, as the House knows, was renewed by the Security Council for two months on 18 June to leave all options open for the moment. The present situation is too fluid for final decisions to be made, and Mr. Habib continues his discussions. Meanwhile, there is an urgent need for humanitarian assistance. We have played our part in this and will continue to do so.
We have already made available about £55,000 to the Red Cross, mainly for medical supplies. We are also giving a further £200,000 to other relief agencies, mainly for tents and blankets and are contributing to the aid offered through the Community. We have told the Lebanese Government that we stand ready to do our best to meet any specific requests that they have. We look to the Israeli Government to do everything possible to speed up the flow of humanitarian supplies from international relief agencies. There have been disquieting reports of delay and hindrance. Events in the Lebanon have inevitably taken the headlines recently. I thought it right to speak about them at some length.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, as I believe he will, to deal with the Iran-Iraq problem, will he be kind enough to say a little about the American attitude towards the invasion of the

Lebanon and whether the almost tacit support that the American Administration seem to have given the Israelis deserves to be passed over?

Mr. Pym: Yes, of course. President Reagan's visit to Europe, with two summits, and more particularly his visit to the United Kingdom, gave us a good opportunity to share our views with him and Secretary of State Haig, and we were able to do that continuously. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister goes to New York tomorrow and will have a further opportunity to meet President Reagan, when they will once again share their views. There is no doubt that the United States has a greater influence on Israel than any other country or group of countries. We have therefore thought it right to keep in very close touch, and as well as representing our views to Israel we have taken the opportunity to represent them strongly to the United States Government. That process continues.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I am sure that the House is anxious to learn how aid is to reach the troubled people in the Lebanon. My right hon. Friend mentioned "disquieting reports". I hope that he does not intend to leave it there. What has he heard about obstructions being put in the path of the international organisations? Why does he think the Israeli authorities are so loth to have aid moved into that area? Could it be that the fighting has not ceased, despite their claim that it has? Could it be that the Israelis do not wish the world to know what is really happening in Southern Lebanon tonight?

Mr. Pym: It is clear that the fighting has not ceased. I do not have absolute confirmation of this, but reports indicate that there have been delays. I say to my hon. Friend and to the House, therefore, that we are doing everything that we can, as a nation and with our Community partners, with Israel to bring the maximum possible relief, and we are ready to respond in the best way that we can to any requests that we receive from the Lebanese Government.

Mr. John Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend restate the Government's attitude to the PLO? First, will he make it clear that the Government will not negotiate or encourage anyone to negotiate with a terrorist organisation? Secondly, will he make clear his condemnation of the techniques that the PLO has employed?

Mr. Pym: I think that I have made clear the Government's position and my own in relation to the PLO and the Palestinian people. I have also described the relationship between the Palestinian people and the PLO. Certainly the attitude towards the PLO is not shared by all Palestinians. Nevertheless, it represents a major focus of the aspirations of the Palestinian people, as I sought earlier to make clear.

Mr. Robert Adley: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, as he has been very generous with his time, but will he state the Government's position on what appears to be the Israeli Government's principle of reserving the right to dictate who their neighbours should be? Will he confirm that it is no part of the Government's policy to tolerate that kind of behaviour, whether by Israel in the Middle East or by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan?

Mr. Pym: I think that I would agree with what my hon. Friend says. I think that what I have said so far is broadly in sympathy with his view.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Pym: I have given way four times already, and I gave way to my hon. Friend earlier. As others will wish to speak in the limited time available, I think that I should continue my remarks.
If I deal more briefly with the conflict between Iran and Iraq, it is certainly not because I regard it as less important. Indeed, its implications for stability in the region could be equally serious or even more serious than the invasion of Lebanon. The conflict remains a very real threat to the stability of all countries in an area of supreme importance to the West, quite apart from the ghastly waste of human and material resources. It is a situation which also contains the practical and real potential danger of escalation to a wider conflict.
Our alarm about the situation is widely shared. In a declaration on 24 May, Foreign Ministers of the Community expressed their deep concern at the continuation of the conflict, not least because of the potential implications if it continues and the grave suffering of the civilian populations. They repeated their call for an end to the fighting and for a negotiated settlement, and paid tribute to the persistent efforts at mediation made by the representatives of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement Foreign Ministers Committee and the Good Offices Committee of the Islamic Conference.
We believe that a peaceful solution should accord with the principles recognised by the international community and defined in Security Council resolution 479 of 28 September 1980, which calls on the parties to refrain from the use of force and to settle their dispute by peaceful means.
The Security Council may have a further useful role to play here, but we must be careful to get the timing right and to see that the necessary preparatory work has been done. In my view, a debate which did no more than record differences between the parties would not help. It might even make progress towards a settlement more difficult than it is already.
The international community should work for a resolution acceptable to both parties. The Secretary-General and his predecessor have been involved in mediation efforts from the very beginning of this conflict and it is right that all members of the Security Council should continue to support his efforts. We ourselves will certainly continue to play as constructive a part as we can.
There are still far too many unknowns and uncertainties in this war for my liking. Iranian intentions are not clear. We hope that there will soon be a complete end to hostilities and that the recent announcement by President Saddam Hussein that he intends to withdraw Iraqi troops from those parts of Iran which they still occupy may prove to be a wise step in the right direction.
These are, then, difficult days for peace in the Middle East. Indeed, I would say that the whole period and sequence of events are difficult and are making the objective for which we are searching more difficult to attain. Some of the consequences of the conflict are already all too apparent, while others will appear only in the course of time. Therefore, I do not find it easy to be

optimistic about the prospects for a negotiated and comprehensive settlement to the Arab-Israel conflict, but it would be a disaster if the Arab States were to conclude from the invasion of Lebanon that such a settlement was now beyond reach. We must make it our business to find the way.
With that in mind, I make a plea to the House not to look at this subject in black and white or in stereotypes. It is all too easy to fall into that trap. With some speeches on the Middle East, and with some letters to the press, it is enough to read the first few words to know what the conclusion will be. I suggest that it is both wrong and unprofitable—indeed, it is positively unhelpful—to see events in that region as a contest between good and evil, however those roles may be allotted. It is equally unhelpful to be mesmerised by words and names, whether they be "Venice", "Camp David" or anything else.

Mr. James Callaghan: Camp David provided for a period of autonomy before the Palestinians, whom the right hon. Gentleman correctly identified as the central problem there, made up their minds finally. It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman might be giving the impression that although he used the term "autonomy", he was placing more weight on self-determination as the immediate issue. That will clearly not be attained by the Palestinians, except at the price of bloody war long continued. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is not ruling out the prospect of a period of autonomy, if it could be successfully negotiated, during which Israelis and Palestinians could learn from each other how to secure their own security with each other prior to self-determination?

Mr. Pym: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his information. I was not ruling out autonomy, but earlier in my remarks I referred to the support that we gave to the Camp David process and also to some of the disadvantages and problems arising from the autonomy proposed. I thought that that was the thing to do. The events of the past few weeks have made it more difficult than before, but I certainly do not rule it out.
It is easy to be mesmerised by words or names. What matters is the peace of the Middle East and the security and well-being of the people who live there. This is an objective to which all can subscribe and all can contribute. It certainly includes Britain, with her long historical links and her deep experience. We have a positive contribution to make in the search for peace in that region.
Next week my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will be in Brussels, attending the European Council. The Middle East is on the agenda and, just as at the Foreign Affairs Council last weekend this subject occupied as much time as any other, so I believe it will occupy a great deal of time at the Council next week. I look forward to hearing the views of the House in this debate and I hope that it will give me a constructive message to carry to that meeting.

Mr. Denis Healey: The immediate occasion of this debate is the war in the Lebanon, but the Foreign Secretary rightly drew attention to the larger implications of what is now happening in other parts of the Middle East. He made a forceful and impressive speech.
I only wish that he had persuaded the Prime Minister to act on some of the principles that he has just enunciated when dealing with the Falklands dispute over the past few months.
The war in the Lebanon is one of the great human tragedies of our time. In two weeks 14,000 people have been killed, up to 20,000 wounded and 500,000 rendered homeless. The vast majority of those are civilians—men, women and children—who had nothing to do with, and no responsibility for, the issues at stake.
The Foreign Secretary described the recent damage as grotesquely disproportionate to the cause. He repeated that view this afternoon. The Israeli Government's action has been condemned by the United Nations, the European Community and members of the United States Government such as Mr. Weinberger.
The Israeli action has also been condemned by a growing number of Israelis. The war in the Lebanon is the first time since the foundation of the State of Israel that that nation has been divided by a war. Three members of the Israeli Cabinet protested at being bamboozled by Prime Minister Begin and Defence Minister Sharon. The Labour alignment, which is a grouping of the main opposition parties, issued a statement last week in which it called on the Government not to go beyond its declared objective of establishing a security zone 40 kilometres from the frontier. The Israeli troops are now fighting 110 kilometres from the frontier. It asked the Government not to occupy Beirut, but fighting is now going on in west and east Beirut. It asked the Israeli Government not to bomb cities or non-combatant populations, but 2,500 people have been killed in Beirut alone. It asked the Israeli Government not to fight the Syrians, but I understand that heavy fighting is going on between Israeli and Syrian forces east of Beirut today.

Mr. Ernie Ross: rose—

Mr. Healey: I shall give way in a moment.
Many distinguished Israelis from many walks of life have expressed their concern about what has been happening in the last two weeks. Professor Leibowitz, a distinguished scientist and religious philosopher, said that he warned his people that this fifth Arab-Israeli war could only be the prelude to a sixth. The Jerusalem Post described itself as being shocked by the sheer scale of ferocity and carnage involved. Mr. Gideon Rafael, who is known to many right hon. and hon. Members, including myself, and who was a predecessor of Mr. Evron as the Israeli ambassador in this country, warned his people that he awaits the time when they will measure their own dead and the massive death and destruction on the other side against the meagre political results. That should underline the importance of the Foreign Secretary's warning that we should not treat this issue in stereotypes, with all the good on one side and all the evil on the other.

Mr. Ernie Ross: rose—

Mr. Healey: I shall give way in a moment.
I must also say to some of my Israeli friends and their sympathisers in Britain that if some of us in the House or outside echo the criticisms made by distinguished Israelis, particularly those with similar views to those that I quoted, we must not be accused of being anti-Israel, anti-Zionist or, still more, of being anti-Semitic. It is perfectly possible

for a friend of Israel, as I count myself, to express the gravest concern and dismay at what the Israeli Government have been doing in the past two weeks.
There is also deep concern inside and outside Israel about the failure of the Israeli Government, until now, to allow private relief agencies to alleviate the appalling suffering of the civilians in the Lebanon, although I welcome today's news of an agreement that, at any rate, agencies other than United Nation agencies may now operate. The scale of the suffering in the Lebanon is such that we now require a massive international rescue operation in order to cope with the problem.
I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will deal with the treatment of prisoners taken by Israeli forces and claimed to be members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Many of us are disturbed that they have not been offered the protection that international law should afford to prisoners of war. Again, there have been complaints in Israel about the treatment of so-called PLO captives.
We must not confine ourselves to expressions of indignation at Mr. Begin's action or to humanitarian concern at its consequences. What has happened in the Lebanon in the past two weeks is part of a general crisis in the Middle East that the Foreign Secretary rightly warned us today, and on television last week, could escalate out of control into a super-power confrontation.
I believe that I am right in saying that the casualties in the war between Iran and Iraq—they received very little publicity in the Western press compared with the events of the past two weeks—are many times greater than have occurred in the Lebanon. Iraq alone has 30,000 dead and 60,000 wounded. Recent reports state that Syrian armed forces massacred 25,000 of their own nationals in the ancient city of Hama last February because they belonged to a different religious sect. Violence is not confined to the coast of Israel and the Lebanon.
The House must recognise that the Middle East is an area where violence is regularly used to pursue political ends, both domestic and international, and where the familiar conflicts of national interest and feeling are enormously aggravated by a growing spread of religious fundamentalism—Jewish and Muslim.
The area is of enormous strategic and economic importance to the great powers. It is an area where one power at least already possesses nuclear weapons and others may do so by the time this decade is out.
We must look beyond the immediate issues behind the Lebanese war—the need for a ceasefire; the withdrawal of Israeli forces; the re-establishment of a United Nations peacekeeping force—to some of the underlying problems. Having had some involvement in these problems in many capacities over the last 37 years, I confess that they are immensely complex and I offer my thoughts on them with some humility but without apology.
I think that Mr. Haig, in that ill-timed speech he made two days before the Israeli forces crossed the Lebanese frontier, rightly said:
No region is less forgiving of political passivity.
He also said that this was America's moment in the Middle East. He was right to say that, although I doubt whether he then realised the context in which his statement would prove so apposite.
Rightly or wrongly, America is blamed throughout the Arab world for what is now happening in the Middle East. The present Administration have claimed the right to


intervene at will in the Middle East wherever they feel their interests threatened and are building a rapid deployment force to acquire the capacity so to intervene. Above all, as the State of Israel wholly depends on economic and military aid from the United States, Washington is inevitably regarded as responsible for whatever the Israeli Government do, even when that Government act in flat defiance of American advice, as they did when the Israelis crossed the Lebanese frontier a fortnight ago.
In comparison with the United States, Britain, even in concert with the whole of the European Community, can play only a minor role directly, but Britain and Europe—particularly Britain and Europe acting together—can still exert a major influence on American policy in the Middle East, especially when Washington is uncertain or divided on what to do, as it certainly is at present. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) was right to raise that issue when he intervened earlier.
There have been significant differences at least of emphasis in the statements made by various American Secretaries and officials in the last few weeks, but it is not possible for someone in Opposition in Britain to be quite sure who believes what.

Mr. James Callaghan: Or in Government.

Mr. Healey: We always found it difficult when we were in office. For the purposes of this discussion, we can take Dr. Henry Kissinger as representing one strand of thought in the American Administration and Mr. George Ball as representing another. Both have served with distinction at the State Department in recent years.
In the absence of the fuller information that we would like, I should like to discuss Dr. Kissinger's views as expressed in the Washington Post last week. He asked for three things—a stable, independent Lebanon with all foreign forces removed, the fulfilment of attainable Arab aspirations on the West Bank, and the protection by the United States of the existing balance of power and institutions in the Arabian peninsula. Whether or not those objectives are desirable, I just do not believe that they are all capable of realisation simultaneously in the situation created by the invasion of the Lebanon. Let me suggest why that may be so.
Some Americans and Israelis obviously dream of creating a Christian Maronite Lebanon as a stable and permanent factor in the Middle East. However, I believe that history teaches us that that is a hollow reed on which to base a policy. When such a Lebanon existed briefly after the end of the French mandate, it was destroyed by internal tensions that were far weaker than they are now. We need only read the account in The Times today of yesterday's meeting of the National Salvation Council of the Lebanon to see that. In the current situation, it is easy to forget that when the Syrian forces first entered Lebanon, it was to protect the Christians and not the Muslims. There is absolutely no reason to believe that in the absence of foreign forces any policy based on the Maronite Christian communities in the Lebanon would have much chance of survival.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the factor that upset the admittedly delicate balance of peace in Lebanon was the

presence there of the Palestinians, particularly the PLO, acting as an army entirely outside the authority of the State of Lebanon?

Mr. Healey: No. The balance in the Lebanon collapsed long before the Palestinians were expelled from Jordan into the State of Lebanon. It is perfectly true that since the Jordanian Government expelled the Palestinians into Lebanon, tensions have increased for various reasons. The Israeli Government deliberately exploited them to set up a Phalangist-Christian security zone on their northern frontier. The instability of the Lebanese polity as people wish it to be now was exposed long before those events, in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
To attempt to create a Christian banana republic, kept alive by wealthy European tourists as an Israeli satellite, is doomed to failure. That is basically what Dr. Kissinger was asking for as his first objective.
His second objective was to fulfil the attainable aspirations of the Arabs on the West Bank. The extent of Arab aspirations that are currently attainable on the West Bank falls hopelessly short of what is needed to satisfy either the Palestinian people or the rest of the Arab world. Just the other day, Mr. Sharon, the Israeli Defence Minister, claimed to see new signs as a result of the fighting in Lebanon of a readiness to co-operate between the Arabs on the West Bank and the Israeli authorities. But I remind the House that the only remaining elected mayor on the West Bank, Mr. Elias Freij, the Mayor of Bethlehem, described the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as "catastrophic". The Sunday Telegraph said:
Looking forlorn and utterly depressed, Mr. Elias Freij said 'Palestinians everywhere were dumbfounded'. He went on: 'Is Israel so really afraid of us that it expects our people to commit mass suicide? Surely we Palestinians are human beings? Surely we have the right to live?
Those are the views of the one remaining elected representative of the Palestinian people on the West Bank, and in giving that interview the mayor of Bethlehem announced his intention of resigning in the next two or three weeks.
On the contrary, I fear that there is growing evidence that at least Mr. Sharon wants to integrate the West Bank completely into Israel, and that would rule out self-determination for the Palestinian people for ever. At present, we must accept—I hope that we can change the situation—that the Camp David process is dead, and with it we see the death of what remains of American policy in the area. President Mubarak of Egypt has made that crystal clear by his statements in the last week or two.
I turn to Dr. Kissinger's third objective—that America should guarantee the security of the Arabian peninsula and its existing institutions. The United States is no longer in a position to protect or sustain the balance of power in the Arabian peninsula. Its failure to restrain Israel just after its decision to send another 75 F16s to Israel has pushed the traditional monarchies surrounding the Gulf already towards the Soviet Union. There is mounting evidence that, in the absence of the sort of support on which they thought they could count from the United States, they are now looking elsewhere for help. These regimes are now threatened not only by popular opposition fanned by the Palestinians, who play a key role in all their administrations, but also by Muslim fundamentalism in their Shi'ite communities. As the House knows, the Shi'ites are in the majority in Iraq and Bahrain and are an important minority in many of the other countries in the


Arabian peninsula. I think probably that one of the biggest mistakes that the Western world has made in approaching these problems in the last few years has been to underestimate the importance of the new theocratic movement in the Muslim world.
The Muslim world stretches from Morocco and Nigeria in Africa to Indonesia in the Far East. This new type of Muslim fundamentalism is now as powerful on the Indian sub-continent as it is in the Middle East itself. It is a fundamentalism that has sent men riding bicycles into mine fields shouting "God is great". None of us can remember except from history books, the power of this type of Muslim fundamentalism when it last conquered the Middle East, much of India and half of Europe. But that power is a reality today. Dealing with it is one of the most difficult problems that will face all other Governments in the world, Western or Communist.
If Iraq, which has a very large majority of Shi'ites in its population, were to join Iran—that is a possibility almost any day as we speak—they would form a block of 55 million people producing 8 million barrels of oil a day with effective control of the movement of all oil from the Gulf to the outside world. Forty per cent. of the industrial world's oil resources come from the Gulf. They have large, well equipped and battle-hardened armies. The problems created by this possibility dwarf enormously even the terrifying and worrying problems which we have been discussing as arising out of the Arab-Israeli problem and conflict.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does my right hon. Friend not agree, in these circumstances, that it is in the interests of all the people he is talking about to keep the State of Israel in being? The only cementing factor among them is hatred of the State of Israel.

Mr. Healey: If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, he says that we should keep the State of Israel in being because it cements all these other countries. That does not seem to me a very good argument for keeping the State of Israel in being. The plain fact—I say this sincerely to my hon. Friend—is that Mr. Begin has done more in the last fortnight to speed this process, which is the greatest single threat to the survival of Israel, than anything that anyone has done since the Shah was overthrown.
The risk of a Shi'ite bloc in the Middle East is now compounded by the possibility of an alliance between the Shi'ite fundamentalists in the Gulf region and the radical Left-wing regimes of Syria, Algeria, Libya and South Yemen, all of which, in the last week or two, have asserted their interest in establishing good relations with the Ayatollah Khomeini. One of the Ayatollah's extraordinary achievements was to bring the PLO and Israel into alliance to support Iran. General Sharon told us the other day that Israel had been supplying Iran with weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. The PLO has been doing its best in recent months also to support the Iran Government. There are, at this moment, I understand, between 1,000 and 2,000 Iranian troops in Syria, a country that has no desire to follow the Shi'ite road or the Muslim fundamentalist road. But necessity makes strange bedfellows. I would only say again that if Israel's role in the Middle East is to cement that sort of alliance, the less we have of it the better, and the better for Israel.
What worries me is that if this process is allowed to continue America's moment in the Middle East, of which

Mr. Haig spoke, will be a moment indeed, ended almost as soon as it begins. The threat to Israel will be infinitely greater than ever before. By accelerating and enlarging this process, Prime Minister Begin has done immense damage to the real interests of his country. How are we to influence this appallingly difficult and dangerous situation? The only way of slowing and, one hopes, reversing this process is for the United States to use all its influence now to undo the damage done in the last few weeks, to ensure that Israel does not carry out a full-scale assault in Beirut, as Mr. Sharon has demanded it should, to persuade Israel to accept the United Nations Security Council resolution and withdraw its forces from the Lebanon and to re-establish a stronger United Nations peacekeeping force, although this is bound to involve, like it or not, the argeement of the Soviet Union. I believe that the European Community must be prepared to use economic measures to achieve these objectives. I understand that it has said that it is prepared to do so. I have no doubt that the timing and modalities of such a decision will be one of the matters for discussion at the summit meeting next week.
I do not believe, however, that, in the present situation, this is enough. There has always been much discussion in this House about the role of the PLO. We know that it is an extremely incoherent body with many groups, some of them wedded to violence and others wishing to achieve a peaceful settlement. We all deeply regret the commitment of the PLO, by its own covenant, to the destruction of the State of Israel. We have all asked it to change this commitment if it is to be accepted as a valid negotiating partner. But the destruction of the PLO as a military force in the Lebanon has not killed and cannot kill the desire of the Palestine people for self-determination. What self-determination means, as the Foreign Secretary said on television last week, is land where they can have a state. It is idle to deceive ourselves that anything else will satisfy the Palestinians as an objective. The only land available is land on the West Bank of the Jordan, as I think the Foreign Secretary also made clear was his opinion. That is where the luckless refugees in the Lebanon must now be allowed to return. They cannot forever be shunted from one foreign country to another in a macabre game of pass the parcel. That has been their fate for the last few years.
Israel must be persuaded to move rapidly to self-determination for the Palestinians on the West Bank through autonomy. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that recent events have inevitably telescoped the time scale in which these events must take place if they are to help to avoid the process that I described earlier. I do not think that anything less will suffice to restore good relations between the West and moderate Arab States, particularly Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I suspect that the Foreign Secretary got some such message when he was in Riyadh the other day, and perhaps that message was partly responsible for the vehemence with which he spoke on television on his return, but I do not seek to inquire into these dreadful secrets.
We are lucky at the moment that there is a new ruler in Saudi Arabia—King Fahd. He has immense experience of these problems and has shown an unusual flexibility in pursuing these objectives. He failed to achieve his objectives at the summit in Fez, but I do not think that we are likely to find a wiser, more farsighted leader in this immensely important country in the Middle East than we have at the moment in King Fahd.
I agree with the Foreign Secretary that if there is to be negotiation for autonomy and self-determination on the West Bank, it must involve authentic representation of the Palestine people. I doubt whether it would be possible even to find "Uncle Toms" after the past fortnight. The words of the mayor of Bethlehem that I quoted a moment ago bear witness to that.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Why use the term?

Mr. Healey: The term "Uncle Tom" has real meaning among the black people of the world. I use it because it represents the relationship between colonial people, people of colour and white people which I hope that this House detests and will have nothing of. I do not believe that it is possible to build a viable stability in any part of the modern world by relying on people who can be so described. That is why I use the phrase, which is well understood.
Unless this prospect opens rapidly, the PLO is soon likely to revive as a purely terrorist movement. Nobody will understand better than Mr. Begin why this is likely to be so, because he went through precisely this experience in his early lifetime.

Mr. Lawrence: Has the PLO ever stopped being a purely terrorist organisation?

Mr. Healey: Of course it has. The PLO stopped being a purely terrorist organisation many years ago. Any hon. Member with some knowledge of its leaders will recognise that whether or not Yasser Arafat is a terrorist, he is not purely a terrorist. He has made enormous attempts, at risk to his life from the extremists in the PLO, to develop a political alternative to terrorism as a way of achieving Palestine rights.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is it not correct that neither the previous Government nor this one have succeeded in getting Mr. Arafat to agree in private or in public to recognise even the right of the State of Israel to exist?

Mr. Healey: That is so, and anybody with knowledge of the way in which resistance movements develop will know how difficult it is for them to make this type of acceptance except in the final stage of negotiation. It is difficult, although not impossible. We have an enormous amount of experience of this problem from our imperial history. It might be argued by an Arab that Mr. Begin's claims to the biblical lands of Samaria and Judea are equally incompatible with progress towards a solution along the lines of the Camp David agreement.
I know how deeply feelings are roused in the House by almost any remark made in any direction on these matters, but we have a duty to say what we think at this dangerous moment.
The PLO is likely to revive as a purely terrorist organisation, and is likely to start using terrorism in Europe and the United States as well as in the Middle East, as other terrorist movements have done in the past. There is some sign that the United States Administration is at last beginning to recognise the dimensions of the problem.
I was fascinated to read in this morning's newspapers the descriptions of the talks between Mr. Begin and President Reagan. Those of us who have some experience of this matter will know that when two countries fail to

reach agreement on anything, their talks are described as "full and frank", but the word "friendly" is not added. On this occasion, the talks were described by the Americans as "direct" and even "blunt". By that, I would suggest that there was a flaming row. Up to a point, that is a good sign.
A shift of American policy in this direction should be the main objective of Britain and the European Community and for all who want peace in the Middle East. Otherwise, I fear, the terrible prophecy of William Butler Yeats may come true all too soon, and we shall soon be asking ourselves
What rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Mr. Julian Amery: If time had allowed, I should rather have enjoyed ranging, like the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), far and wide over the field, although on many points I should have found myself in disagreement with him and critical of him. Let me try to bring the debate down to earth.
I listened with great attention to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said but, while I fully appreciate the tragedy and the drama of what has taken place in the Lebanon, I thought that my right hon. Friend underestimated a little the immense progress towards peace that has been made in the Middle East in the past 14 or 15 years, largely as a result of military operations.
Before the 1967 war all the Arab countries were united against Israel. After 1967 Jordan adopted a position of what might be called non-belligerence, exemplified by the open bridges policy, under which Jordanians have traded freely not only with the West Bank but with Israel. After 1973 President Sadat moved fairly rapidly towards the Camp David process, which brought peace between Egypt and Israel.
It is true that Syria remained rejectionist, but, having lost the Golan Heights, it was in no position militarily to attack Israel from Syrian ground. Thus, at least three of the territories contiguous with Israel were more or less in a state of either peace or non-belligerency with Israel.
There remained the Lebanon, which had originally been entirely non-belligerent, but whose attitude was changed not by the will of the Lebanese people, but by the creation of a State within a State by the PLO. It had tried to create that kind of State in Jordan. King Hussein cracked down on it to prevent it from doing so, but in the much weaker state of Lebanon it managed to create a political and military organisation that was highly subsidised from outside and armed by the Soviet Union. This enabled it to play a very important part not only in the Middle East but in the Third world and beyond. Moreover, they were backed by Syria. We should not forget that Syria is an ally of the Soviet Union, linked to it by definite agreements.
Clearly, for the Israelis, this was an area of great disturbance. Everyone had known for a long time that the Israelis were likely to crack down on the situation. In every Arab capital that I visited it was regarded as inevitable that the Israelis would crack down, and, in private, the hope was sometimes expressed that they would.
It is too early to assess what will happen in the Lebanon. Will the situation lead to a withdrawal of the Syrians from Lebanon? Will it lead to the disarming of the PLO and the disperal of its ruling group? My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke almost kindly of the


PLO, as did the right hon. Member for Leeds, East. Frankly, there was an almost audible sigh of relief in many Arab capitals at the discomfiture of the PLO and the knowledge that it will be some time before it can again threaten the rulers in the moderate countries, extorting money from them.
Of course, it is not the end of the PLO. But what is happening in the battle of Beirut puts in question whether that organisation will be able to act independently in the future. President Mubarak, with his customary statesman-ship, offered it the possiblility of setting up a Government in exile in Cairo. That would be splendid. It would mean that the PLO would have to accept Camp David, at least by inplication. The Jordanians, with their previous experience, are unlikely to offer hospitality, except under strict controls. Were the PLO to go into Syria, it would be under iron control. If the PLO went to Riyadh—which is possible—it would be expected to work for the Fahd plan. It is also possible that it might go to the Soviet Union, although throughout the crisis the Soviet Union has shown itself to be rather a paper bear in its attitude to the Lebanon.
It may be that the eradication of the PLO as an independent force, as a State within a State, will provide an opportunity to set up an independent Lebanon and one which, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's doubt's might be pro-Western, as it was, by and large, up to 1976. My right hon. Friend was right when he said that the Israelis should withdraw from the Lebanon, but surely we want the Israelis to withdraw, the Syrians to withdraw, and the PLO to be disarmed, ceasing to be a State within a State.

Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Syrians were invited into the Lebanon by the Lebanese Government? They are on a six-monthly mandate, which has been renewed regularly. Is that not correct?

Mr. Lawrence: Like Afghanistan.

Mr. Adley: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) says "Like Afghanistan". It is not like Afghanistan, unless one believes, for instance, that the present Lebanese ambassador in London does not know what he is talking about. Does my hon. Friend accept that the position of the Syrians in Lebanon is not the same as that of the invading Israelis?

Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend is quite right. They were invited, and they are there at the invitation of the Government who invited them, but surely we have no interest in seeing a pro-Soviet Syrian force in Lebanon. For us, it is even worse than seeing the Israelis there. Surely we want both to withdraw. I am pretty certain that we shall not get the Israelis out unless we get the Syrians most of the way out as well.
If the new Lebanese Government, under whatever aegis, wanted us to provide an international force, I hope that we would be ready to serve in it. In my opinion, the United Nations would not be a suitable instrument, partly because of the influence that the Soviet Union must have over it, but also because, having seen the UNIFIL forces in the Lebanon, I frankly believe that they are quite useless, and proved to be so the other day.
If it were possible to have an independent Lebanon again, we should be moving towards the plan that Mr. Haig developed at the beginning of his tenure of office and

on which the right hon. Gentleman poured so much scorn. It would mean that the Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Oman and the Gulf States would all virtually work with the West.
Of course, the Palestinian problem would remain. The problem has three aspects: the West Bank and Gaza, Jerusalem, and the problem of the refugees.
As far as the West Bank and Gaza are concerned, I have never been able to understand how the Israelis can believe that they can incorporate 1·5 million Arabs in their State and maintain its Jewish character to which they attach so much importance. In their own interests, they must make some concessions.
The old city of Jerusalem within the walls is so distinct from the rest of the city that I should have thought that one could invent a special regime where the three faiths—Muslim, Jewish and Christian—could exercise authority, perhaps on an analogy with the relationship that the Vatican has to the municipality of Rome.
There is enough money in the Middle East now, whether on the West Bank or elsewhere, to develop facilities to enable the refugees to be resettled. The important question is where the title will go if the PLO ceases to be able to operate independently and, as a result, ceases to be the sole representative of the Palestinian people. My right hon. Friend said that neither the Palestinians nor the Jordanians want it. However, it might revert to the King of Jordan in the absence of an effective PLO. In a few days we may well find that the PLO has either disintegrated or worse.
We should not be too pessimistic. The Rabat and Venice declarations seem to have gone with the wind. We should try to find something new. There would still be an argument about the Palestinian problem—an argument between the Arabs and the Israelis—but it would be between broadly pro-Western Arabs and pro-Western Israelis. There would be no East-West overtones of the kind that obscure and afflict any attempt to have discussions with the PLO.
Let me turn to the immeasurably more important—

Mr. David Crouch: Is not my right hon. Friend being a little condescending about the Palestinians in saying that they might be able to settle somewhere in the State of Israel? As the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) rightly said, the Palestinians' problem is that they want a State and land. It is not a question of whether the PLO leads their interests. It is a question of dispossessed people, the sort of cause that the House has been fighting for for hundreds of years. I am amazed that my right hon. Friend should be condescending about people who have no State, land or rights.

Mr. Amery: I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not condescend to listen carefully. I said that there were three problems. The people in the West Bank and Gaza, by and large, have land. There is the problem of Jerusalem and the problem of about 600,000 refugees in the Lebanon who must be looked after in one way or another. I said that there is enough money in the Middle East to develop facilities for them either on the West Bank or elsewhere. There is quite a lot of empty land in the West Bank that could be developed—indeed, a good deal of it is. I was not being condescending in the least. I was only saying that, of the three problems, that of the refugees is the smallest. The 600,000 refugees still living in camps in the Lebanon could be catered for.
I turn to the much more serious problem of the Gulf. Although the Soviet Union may have taken a beating in the battle for Beirut—or may be about to take one—a far graver battle is blazing at the head of the Gulf.
Iran has recovered from the shambles into which it fell after the expulsion of the Shah. Under the impact of foreign aggression it has made an amazing, perhaps regrettable, recovery. It has forged a military machine and the rule of the saints—the ayatollahs—is supported by the Communist Tudeh party and by pro-Soviet Syria. They are advancing in a war which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East rightly said recalls the advances of early Islam in Africa and in the Middle East.
A statement from Ayatollah Khomeini was published today saying that he has no intention of calling a halt to the war. He says that he will go on until his other objectives—apart from the withdrawal from Iranian soil—have been achieved. I do not suppose that the ayatollah is keen for his victorious army to return to Tehran. The Prime Minister need not worry about Admiral Woodward and General Moore when they return home. But things are different in the Middle East and there could be trouble. If the army is not to come home it must go on to liberate Najat and Kerbela and to the establishment of an Islamic republic of Basra, with Baghdad going to the Syrians.
With Iran to the north and east of the Gulf and Aden and Ethiopia to the south, the great treasure house of the oil-producing Middle East is already encircled and could be put at immediate risk. This situation could develop within weeks or months. The stage may be set for a major disaster. In 1961 I was at the Air Ministry and we thought that Kuwait was threatened by General Kassim. We moved forces in at the invitation of the ruler and averted a disaster. Could anyone do that today? Perhaps the United States of America could do that with its rapid deployment force. It has the means to do that, but has it got the will to put a cork into the neck of the bottle in time? Have the Arab rulers the wisdom to invite it to do so in time? If our help were needed, I trust that it would be forthcoming. Let us be under no illusion. The knife is at the throat of the whole of the civilised world.

Mr. David Steel: The House has been fortunate in being able to listen to two opening speeches of such quality, objectivity and depth. I join the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who went out of his way to quote many sources in Israel, from the press, in politics and in the academic world, all of whom oppose the recent Israeli action. I hope that a strong message will go out from the House after the debate; a message of encouragement to those who are opposed to the policies being conducted in their name.
We all have reports on which we rely. I simply wish to draw the attention of the House to the lead story on the front page of The Scotsman on Saturday. It was written by Robert Fisk, in Sidon. He wrote:
Medical authorities in the city said that at least four young men had died there after being beaten up by Israeli troops. We spoke to one young man, a Red Cross worker who had been among the prisoners.
'They held us for four days, almost all the time out in the open. They gave us water but no food and ten men died near me. I saw one man—I think he was a Palestinian—and he asked for food. A soldier hit him in the stomach with his rifle and the man

collapsed and died. I do not know why the Israelis do this. Many of us hated the Palestinians and are pleased the Israelis have come.'
In his report, Robert Fisk included a description of a basement building that had been destroyed by a bombardment. He said:
The bodies lay on top of each other to a depth of perhaps six feet, their arms and legs wrapped around each other, well over 100 of them, congealed in death into a strangely unnatural mass.
Many of us are distressed that a people who have themselves suffered so much in the past should find that they are now represented by a Government who are prepared to act in this way. It is horrifying. We know that the Israelis were looking for a pretext for the invasion. The invasion of the Lebanon was clearly planned and, unfortunately, the pretext for that incursion was given by the dastardly attack on the Israeli ambassador in London, Mr. Shlomo Argov. No words are strong enough to condemn that assassination attempt. He is a distinguished representative of his nation and a personal friend of many of us. We wish him a speedy recovery from his terrible wounds.
That attack gave the Israeli Government an excuse for their so-called retaliation. Even if they were pursuing Mosaic law, it is an eye for an eye, not 10 eyes or 100 eyes for an eye. The retribution has been out of all proportion to the provocation that we all know Israel has suffered for many years from PLO bases in the Lebanon. We should make it as clear as possible that Israeli interests are ill served by the Israeli Government's action. Nothing could have been more calculated to lose friends and influence in the world than their actions in the past few days.
Other speakers have dealt with the problems of the Lebanon itself. Over many years the Lebanon has suffered from what the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) described as an invitation to the Syrian forces to occupy it. Whether or not it was originally an invitation, the fact is that Syrian troops have been acting as a governing authority in the Lebanon, along with the PLO. The only prospect for peace in the Lebanon is for those troops to be withdrawn.
If the Lebanon requires assistance to maintain law and order and the integrity of the State, that should be provided by the international community, through a strengthened United Nations force. It is unfair for the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) to say sweepingly that UNIFIL has been useless in keeping the peace. He and I have both seen UNIFIL in operation there. Anyone who examines UNIFIL's United Nations mandate will know how inadequate it is. At some time, the civilised world, and, more specifically, the permanent members of the Security Council, must grapple with the problem of how to establish a sufficiently effective mandate for the provision of an international peacekeeping force that is capable of maintaining law and order in the trouble spots of the world. It simply is not fair to blame the military, when the mandate under which they operate is so weak. That is the tragedy of the UNIFIL operation.
We can learn other lessons from the events of recent days. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will tell us that we, as well as the other permanent members of the Security Council, will do whatever we can to create a more effective United Nations mandate. We also need a permanent international peacekeeping force rather than the cobbled together forces that we must have in the Lebanon and elsewhere under the present limited arrangements.
The second lesson is one that many of us learned a long time ago. It is that there can never be security for the State of Israel based on military force and the annexation of neighbouring territories. Lasting security for Israel can be achieved only through a general peace settlement in the Middle East that is guaranteed by the major powers. Without the search for that settlement there can be no long-term security for Israel. That is why I believe that its present policy is so profoundly mistaken.
The third lesson, as has been mentioned, is that the Camp David process is dead. We should pay tribute to what was achieved under that process, especially by President Sadat and Mr. Begin, in reaching a bilateral agreement between Egypt and Israel.
Camp David failed on two counts. The first was that President Sadat believed that he could act as an Arab Head of State on behalf of the Palestinians. He could not. Secondly, he hoped, as did the Americans originally, that the Camp David process was intended to involve not just Egypt, but Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other powers. Again, that proved to be impossible. But we should accept that Camp David has achieved a great deal in bilateral terms between Egypt and Israel, but we should now look for a wider means than Camp David to advance a Middle East settlement.
Towards the end of his life, President Sadat had doubts whether that part of the Camp David process dealing with Palestinian autonomy had much more life in it. Certainly events in recent months suggest to me that the autonomy route to a long-term settlement in the West Bank cannot be made to work. The Israeli authorities have even interfered with the processes of local government there. There can be little confidence among the people of the West Bank that a wider and more authoritative form of autonomy could lead to self-determination.
I agree with the tone of what both the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said. The key issue is whether we accept the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and to territory on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. We must use our influence with the Americans and the Israelis to persuade them that self-determination must come.
Then there is the vexed question whether it means that we must deal with the PLO. We must be blunt about this. Parts of the PLO make up a terrorist organisation. When I met Yasser Arafat at the end of 1980 I suffered much opprobrium for talking to a terrorist leader, but the time will come when Foreign Secretaries, British or others, must talk face to face with the PLO, not because I believe that the PLO is representative of the Palestinian people, but because the more that one travels round the Middle East the more one finds that Palestinians believe that the PLO must act as their voice, even if they are not members of it. I found that the PLO was a representative voice of professional people, business men and local government officials, not just on the West Bank but among Palestinians elsewhere.
The Palestinian people are not talking about a gathering together of all the Palestinians spread throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world to return to a Palestinian State. They wish to have the integrity and the dignity of a State to call their own, so that, wherever they are in the world, where many of them may wish to remain, they can have a passport that entitles them to a homeland.

Mr. Adley: The word "terrorist", as with so many words in such debates, means different things to different people. If we consider people such as Kenyatta, Makarios and Mugabe, what one person calls a "terrorist" is often a "freedom fighter" in another person's mind.

Mr. Steel: That is true, and one could add Mr. Begin to that list. Is not one of the lessons of world politics that, where common justice is denied to a people, some elements will resort to violence to pursue their ends where politicians have failed? Unhappily, that has been the case with the PLO. We do not condone or excuse it, but we must face the reality.
In return, we are entitled to demand that the PLO recognises the right of the State of Israel to exist. We must look with hope at the declaration from Saudi Arabia, because it was a signal that an Arab country other than Egypt, recognised the right of all States—Israel was rot named individually—to exist. That was a step forward. We should grasp and build on the Saudi Arabian plan, together with the Venice declaration. If Israel is to have real security, its integrity must not only be recognised by the Palestinians but must be guaranteed by international protection.
What should Britain do now? First, we must talk equally bluntly to our American allies. They, more than anyone, can influence what is happening in the Middle East. We must try to persuade them that the endless flow of arms and cash to Israel, without strings attached, is a mistaken policy that will continue to cause trouble in that area. We must also face the fact that Syria and other countries are in the Soviet camp. The Soviet Union cannot be left out of discussions leading to a guaranteed peace settlment.
We must try to turn the European declaration of Venice—that was all it was—into a European initiative. We in the European countries are in a unique position, because of our ties with the Middle East, to exert great influence on both the Americans and the Soviet Union. If we are to turn the declaration into an initiative, we must do more than simply have the chairman-in-office touring the Middle East, as happened with Gaston Thorn, Lord Carrington and Mr. Tindemans.
We must recognise the limitations of the EEC mechanism and the six months Presidency. We must also try to find a permanent European emissary who is acceptable to the European powers and who can carry on the search for a Middle East settlement. That would be a significant contribution to make. Particularly with the development of nuclear power, we should recognise that if we regard the world as a powder keg, the place where the fuse could be lit is the Middle East. We should therefore devote our earnest efforts to finding a long-term settlement to the problems there.

Mr. Dennis Walters: On 4 June that sinister terrorist Mr. Begin unleashed a merciless and unprovoked invasion of the Lebanon which he and Mr. Sharon had been preparing for more than a year. Eighteen days later, more than 10,000 Lebanese civilian dead, hundreds of thousands homeless, 16,000 dying or maimed and thousands of Palestinians killed stand testimony to the ruthless brutality of the Israeli armed forces. The perpretrators of this massive crime against humanity have been over the past few days hampering the dispatch of medical aid and harassing its suppliers.
It has been suggested that one should be moderate about the issues in the Middle East but surely this is a time to speak out firmly because the Israelis and their supporters for too long have cashed in on excessive moderation. In the early days of 1967 and 1970 any criticism of Israel was labelled anti-Semitic. That was a conventional form of blackmail to which we were subjected. A long time has passed, and as the civilised world looks on, shocked and aghast at events in Lebanon, but apparently incapable of doing anything, it is time that the Israelis and their supporters in this country began to feel some sense of shame about what is happening. Although people have spoken out in Israel, and Israeli supporters have spoken out in France, the reaction by the Zionist lobby in Britain is still very muted.
Britain and the EEC have spoken out clearly but lack of leverage has weakened our position. Now that Israel has apparently rebuffed the request for certain assurances asked for by the EEC, economic sanctions should be applied. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said, the United States has spoken with many voices. Certainly, Mr. Haig has fitted the epithet "duplicitous" effectively. Western influence in the Arab world has been dealt a blow, the full effects of which will not be felt for a considerable time. In the long run, the Soviet Union will profit.
There had been no provocation, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said a few days ago and the Foreign Secretary confirmed this afternoon. The ceasefire in the border had not been violated for 10 months.
The principal lesson to be learnt, and lessons should be learnt, from the latest horror and carnage in the Lebanon is that there are some problems—the Middle East is a supreme example—that get worse, not better, if neglected and left to resolve themselves with the passage of time. All along that has been the mistake in the Middle East. We have only to cast back our minds to the missed opportunities after the fighting of 1948, 1967 and 1973.
As for the high hopes mistakenly engendered four years ago at Camp David, they have now finally been snuffed out. True, a peace treaty has been signed between Israel and Egypt, and Israel has at last withdrawn from Egyptian territory. However, with regard to the central issue, which is the resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and the conclusion of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, those four years have not been merely squandered. They have actually set back the search for peace.
The state of affairs today is far worse than it was in September 1978. The annexation of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the frenzied proliferation of illegal Israeli settlements, the bare-faced robbery on a vast scale of land and water belonging to the Palestinians, the air attack on Baghdad and the bloody air attacks on Lebanon, which preceded the invasion, have eroded enormously the grounds of a real negotiated peace. On past form, the situation will become worse, not better, if more time is lost without coming to grips with the core of the problem. This is not, as some would have us believe, Israel's security. Certainly, in any truly lasting peace settlement, the security of both Israel and its Arab neighbours must be effectively safeguarded. However, that is not what has prevented and frustrated the realisation of peace for all these years. Effective security safeguards could have been

negotiated. Arab hostility and Israeli insecurity are the symptoms and consequences, not the roots, of the problem. The real roots are Israel's appetite for other people's land and contempt for other people's rights.

Mr. Lawrence: Did my hon. Friend speak out thus firmly when the Syrians invaded Lebanon and with the PLO destroyed over 25,000 lives?

Mr. Walters: As has been stated on about three occasions, the Syrians did not invade Lebanon. They were called in.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Like the Russians being called into Afghanistan.

Mr. Walters: The hon. Gentleman is a great Zionist shouter. He has got it wrong. It would be desirable if the Syrians left. I am in favour of all military forces leaving Lebanon, the Israelis first of all.
The main reason why peace has eluded the international community for over 30 years is that it has funked the task of compelling Israel to respect and discharge the obligations of a peace-loving State, which it accepted when it was admitted to the United Nations in 1949. Every time it has been allowed to get away with defying international censure, its arrogance has increased and its defiance has multiplied.
This is the context in which we should look at Israel's latest adventure in invading and terrorising its Arab neighbours. Mr. Begin has said that his Government have no designs on even one inch of Lebanese territory. That, of course, is a lie. The intention may be that Israeli usurpation of Lebanese territory should be flimsily disguised by turning over nominal control of its conquests to Lebanese puppets supported by and acting in Israel's interest.
That was the device that Mr. Begin cooked up four years ago when he set up Major Haddad as a mini-Quisling of Israel in South Lebanon. The other day Mr. Begin told that rather unattractive puppet: "Beaufort is yours". That was after the castle was captured. So much for the sincerity of his assurances about respecting the territorial integrity of Lebanon.
The idea of turning the Lebanon into a dependency of Israel and governing it by proxy through a puppet regime is nothing new in the history of Israel's territorial ambitions. As long ago as May 1948 David Ben Gurion spelt it out clearly in his diaries. He said:
The Achilles heel of the Arab coalition is the Lebanon. Muslim supremacy in this country is artificial and can easily be overthrown. A Christian State ought to be set up there, with its southern frontier on the river Litani. We would sign a treaty of alliance with this state. Thus when we have broken the strength of the Arab Legion and bombed Amman, we could wipe out Trans-Jordan: after that Syria would fall. And if Egypt still dared to make war on us, we would bomb Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo. We should thus end the war and would have put paid to Egypt, Assyria and Chaldea on behalf of our ancestors".
That horrifying and fanatical nonsense—as it seemed at the time—in an attempt to identify Israel's Arab neighbours of today with the enemies of the ancient Israelites 2,000 years ago was not a passing aberration of one fanatic; it reflects a continuing theme in the political planning of Israel's leaders. In this country we have long since seen through the myth of Israel as a little David bravely standing up to the Goliath of the Arab world.

Mr. Michael Latham: My hon. Friend has been listened to with courtesy as is right and proper. Should there be a State of Israel and, if so, what should its borders be?

Mr. Walters: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has listened to me with courtesy. I always listen to him with courtesy. There should be a State of Israel behind guaranteed and recognised borders. Those borders should be the 1967 borders. We could perfectly well organise demilitarised zones. That has been discussed. I am in favour of the maximum security for Israel and for its neighbours. With such security Israel could live in peace for much longer than it will if it continues to believe that it can only survive by fighting and destroying its neighbours.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman is a Zionist.

Mr. Walters: But different, I hope, from the hon. Gentleman who has just shouted. There has been much Israeli-inspired speculation about the possibility of using the position created by the invasion of Lebanon as an opportunity to restructure the Lebanese State on more durable lines. Even if that were to be the outcome it is certainly no ground for condoning the bloodbath that Israel's action has just been creating in the Lebanon.
A genuine solution of Lebanese problems needs to be worked out by the Lebanese and cannot be negotiated under the shadow of Israeli occupation. The essential prerequisite is a complete, prompt and real withdrawal by Israel of its invading forces. There may be a case for that to be accompanied by the arrangement of temporary international protection for the Lebanon while negotiations are proceeding, but any such protection must be genuinely independent and impartial. Above all, the pursuit of this idea must not be allowed to serve as a pretext for Israel to delay withdrawing its forces.
After the Suez war President Eisenhower insisted on the Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai. He asked:
Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose the conditions of its withdrawal? If we agree, then I fear we will have turned back the clock of international order.
That was true and apt then, and it is now. We did not let the Argentines get away with their aggression on the Falkland Islands and for the sake of international morality we should not let the Israelis get away with their infinitely bloodier aggression in the Lebanon.
In the end, discussion of the present tragedy turns inescapably to the core of the whole problem in the Middle East to which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the Liberal Party have referred—namely, what to do about the Palestinians. Whatever may be contrived for restoring Lebanon's integrity and independence, there will be no real stable peace there or anywhere else in the region so long as the festering sore of Israel's cruelty and injustice to the Palestinians continues to poison relations between Israel and the Arab world. Whatever happens to the Lebanon, the Palestinian problem will not go away. The Palestinians and their leaders, who basically are the PLO, will not disappear from the scene in the Middle East.
Where are the Palestinians to go? The only safe place for them and for others is in a State of their own on Palestinian soil. The key to peace is to let the Palestinians

establish their own State on the West Bank and Gaza. That is the best hope of securing their future and that of others as well, including Israel.
The proper answer to the horror and tragedy of what has happened in the Lebanon is not to shut our eyes to the underlying causes and not to pretend that the Lebanese crisis can be solved or isolated from the general problem of peace in the Middle East. The answer should be for the international community, especially the Western powers, to make a fresh start towards a comprehensive settlement and to pursue it with the determination and firmness of purpose which have been so lamentably lacking in the past.
If we are seriously to consider external action to restore peace in the Lebanon, let us also consider the need for such intervention in the Israeli-occupied territories of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan heights. An effective and impartial peacekeeping force is needed there, no less than in the Lebanon, if we are to make serious progress towards peace.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) began by calling on the friends of Israel outside Israel to echo the dissident voices quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in criticising the conduct of the Israeli Government. The hon. Gentleman said that this was important, and I do not deny that I shall return to it but I say to him and to those like him in the House and elsewhere that they do not serve the cause of peace by phrasing their evaluation of the Arab-Israeli dispute and conducting their political campaigns in the wholly anti-Israeli terms that we have experienced from the hon. Gentleman on many occasions in the past and as we have heard once more from him this evening.
As a Zionist, I am not by any means uncritical of Israeli Governments, past or present. I have a great love not only of Israel but of the Middle East, of which I still have fine memories, having spent some time there many years ago. Above all, like all hon. Members, I am concerned primarily with establishing wherever possible in this difficult world more civilised relationships within and between States, whether it be Israel and her neighbours or other States. We have reached such a pass in international and human affairs as not to treat lightly and contemptuously the conduct of ourselves or anyone else who puts at risk human lives, whether it be conduct of an Israeli Government, a British Government, an Arab Government, the PLO or anyone else.

Mr. Walters: The hon. Gentleman complains about the speeches that I have made. If only more attention had been paid to the matter and the Israeli lobby had not been so cocooned by lack of criticism, we would not be facing this situation today.

Mr. Freeson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman repeats his error. It is no use pretending, or deluding ourselves, here or anywhere else, that the sole responsibility for what has been going on for the past 30 years in the Middle East between the Arabs and the Israelis lies with one State, Israel. It would be inappropriate, and time would forbid if I were to try, to rehearse the history over many years. There have been faults on all sides. One could take several starting points, be it 1948 or one of the years before that.
For Heaven's sake, without going into the history, let us all adopt a sense of humility in taking up political positions over Middle Eastern affairs or other affairs elsewhere in the world. Unless and until all the political leaders in the Middle East get at least to the stage that the hon. Gentleman did, so far as I recall for the first time, of accepting fundamentally the right of the State of Israel to exist—

Mr. Ernie Ross: My right hon. Friend has said that.

Mr. Freeson: —there cannot be any basis for negotiation.
The constant theme of political extremism, wherever and in whatever form it has been expressed, on the Arab-Israeli dispute is anti-Israel. There has been an unwillingness to accept that Israel has a right, and will continue, to exist. There must be an acceptance that it will continue to exist, whatever else is done in the political or military scene of the Middle East.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Why does my right hon. Friend not sit down?

Mr. Freeson: Coming to the present situation, I wish to express a dissenting voice, if I may put it that way, from within the Zionist and Jewish position. I am a Jew, a British Socialist and a Zionist. The remnants of my family are on record in Yad Vashem in Jerusalem as having been destroyed by the Nazis. I do not need to be told by any Zionist in the lobby or outside that to criticise the recent conduct of the Israeli Government in the Lebanon is anti-Israeli and weakens the position of Israel, because I do not accept that. Dissenting voices must be raised and dissenting views must be clearly expressed.
It is an understatement to say that there has been tremendous provocation—[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) would listen to what I say instead of to the noises in his head, he might eventually be able to discuss this intelligently instead of merely speaking and thinking in rhetorical slogans. There has been tremendous provocation over a very long period from the military positions held by the PLO on the northern borders of Israel. There is no doubt about that, but it does not justify the various act ions that have been taken.

Mr. Ernie Ross: When?

Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend will no doubt be able to make his own speech if he is called. Perhaps in the meantime he will allow me to get on with mine.
There has been tremendous military provocation. I have seen it. I am not inventing it. I have seen the bombardments and the destruction that they have caused on a number of occasions in recent years. I did not have to go to Israel to be persuaded that this was taking place, but it so happened that I was there and saw it. The provocation exists. I know of families who have suffered as a result of it. I know children who have been wounded in the bombardments. Let it therefore be stated as fact that the provocation exists.
It may be argued that action must be taken to stop the constant military harassment, killing and wounding of innocent people south of the border, but in my view that does not justify the vile and horrific invasion of the Lebanon. What is more, I believe that conduct of that kind

by the Government of Israel puts at risk the very character of the State of Israel and the dreams that some of us have held and shared with others for its future as a progressive democratic State in the Middle East.
I believe in that dream, and I believe that the political initiatives and the social and Socialist innovations that Israel has achieved over many years—not in rhetoric, but on the ground in the creation of communities, industrial ventures and political institutions—have been achieved largely through the evolution of one of the most dynamic democratic Socialist movements in the world. I also believe, however, that that kind of society is put at risk by conduct such as that recently undertaken, and I fear for the future of the State of Israel if politics of this kind continue there. That is essentially what I wished to say today.
On the more specific political position, I repeat what has been said by others. Whatever has happened in the Lebanon, which is far in excess of a response to the evil provocation of the PLO on the northern borders, it does not provide a solution to what is broadly described as the Palestinian problem of the West Bank. Sooner or later, and I say sooner—now—there must be a genuine move by Israel as well as by others to get genuine autonomy talks going, as part of a dynamic, evolutionary political situation and not because the achievement of a particular form of autonomy means the end of change in the Middle East.
I believe, though it is scorned by many, that sooner or later—probably later—if there is to be peace in the Middle East between the Arabs and the Israelis there will have to be a form of federalism between the Jordanian State and the Israeli State. The genuine development of autonomy on the West Bank for the Palestinian people living there, and the refugees whom my right hon. Friend said could rightly be encouraged with economic aid to come from the Lebanon to settle on the West Bank could be a major step in that direction. It would give people an entitlement to an identity and to land, and establish a broader link between Jordan and Israel.
I do not believe that there is an indefinite possibility of a viable West Bank State as we understand political States. I believe that there is the possibility of a relationship building up between Jordan and Israel by way of a genuine move towards national autonomy on the West Bank in the months and years ahead that will eventually point in that direction. It is up to this country to contribute to that end.
I do not believe that all the Israeli leaders are committed to that approach, never mind the details, and that is my grave fear. They are divided and have their different emphases. They have a coalition Government, with different generations, as do all other political movements. There is an element—I put it no stronger—within the Likud Alliance that is obsessed with territory and with maintaining Israeli responsibility for Judea and Samaria, irrespective of the democratic fact of life that these are essentially Arab territories, with Arabs living in them. Some of them believe that they can create and hold on to what they would describe as a Bantustan.
Do not let the criticism of any such belief be treated as though that belief represents the views of Israel as a whole, or even of the Israeli Government as a whole. It is an aspect to be brought out openly and criticised, as Israelis criticise it. It should not be criticised in a spirit of anti-Israeli politics, sometimes with veiled anti-Semitism—I say this bluntly—in this place as elsewhere. It should not be treated as another weapon with which to beat the


Israelis, as a State or as a society. It should be treated as a valid criticsm of certain views that are advocated or believed by people in Government in Israel and outside Israel.
My sincere hope is that as a starting point, in the House and in the country, a genuine debate and argument will emerge that will point in the direction of genuine comradeship—I use that term in the non-party sense—between peoples and in the direction of support for peace and friendship, but not in the direction of continued division and warfare.
We have a role here. We know that this country and the House are focal points for pressure groups—Arab, Israeli and others. We are seen as an important political focal point. If for no other reason than that, we have a responsibility to take this broader approach, in a genuine spirit of seeking friendship and peace in the Middle East because we wish to see an end to the carnage that has been experienced in Lebanon recently, was experienced in Syria not long ago, was experienced a few years ago in Jordan, and is being experienced in so many places in the Middle East.
Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost. What we have seen recently with the Israeli invasion of the Lebanon, in which thousands of people, most of them innocent, have been unjustifiably killed, is just the latest event in a series of horrors that have occurred in that part of the world.
Our role, even if it is only to a small extent, is to try to contribute to the ending of that situation. We must seek genuine peace and friendship, not constant political and military warring, between the Israeli and Arab peoples.

Sir Hugh Fraser: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) on the warmth and depth of his feelings on these immensely complicated matters. I should also like to respond to the two Front Bench speeches which, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) pointed out, did not show a full appreciation of the fact that the process of reconciliation inside the State of Israel must be measured. To jump straight from a non-automonous process to the establishment of a Palestinian State could be extremely dangerous and would contribute nothing to peace in the Middle East. I was surprised to hear both the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) touch on that subject. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East is no longer present.
I can best describe the situation regarding the State of Israel and the invasion of the Lebanon by quoting Dr. Kissinger, who said:
No sovereign State can tolerate indefinitely the build up along its borders of a military force dedicated to its destruction".
That is what has happened in the Middle East, and that is why the fate of the Lebanon is central to what we are discussing.
It is worth recalling why this situation has arisen over the past 30 years. The first accusation must be made against the West as a whole. Benign and, as it proved, malignant neglect was shown by the Western powers of a situation that started to deteriorate in the 1960s. The Western powers simply said that so long as the Lebanon had secure external boundaries it was a situation with which we should not concern ourselves. Yet at the same

time, as hon. Members have pointed out, the Lebanon was ceasing to exist as a sovereign or effective State. That is what we have seen.
The Melkart declaration of 1975 gave the PLO areas in which it could operate as a State within a State. The Syrians intervened and there was civil war. Now the situation is run by about 130 or 140 militant militias that try to control the State outside the area controlled by the Syrians or the PLO, or the Haddad forces in the south or the Phalangists in the north.
The next thing that must be remarked upon is the folly of the EEC to regard, against all American advice, the PLO as a suitable instrument for the carrying out of peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. This gave the PLO a far greater importance than it ever deserved or should be credited with. As the PLO is being attacked today by the Israelis in its fortresses, not one Arab voice and not one Arab arm is pushed to the help of Mr. Arafat. His most bitter complaint is "Where are my friends?" There has been no stir in his favour.
Next, one should note the folly of the PLO in allowing itself to carry out the gamble of building up an immense quantity of weapons during the ceasefire period. Thousands of tons of weapons from Libya, Syria and the Soviet Union were used to build up a military force that was bound to be regarded as a threat by the State of Israel. It was a gamble that not a single Arab State has supported. This is the background against which this extremely serious and dangerous situation must be viewed.
There is now a chance to fill the vacuum of the unviable, unsovereign State of Lebanon. I do not rate that chance very high, but it is a far more important chance than the Venice initiative or any initiative so far taken by the EEC. If there could be achieved a free Lebanon for the Lebanese, this would be a real and great achievement out of the bloodshed and horror that has been seen. Some say that this is wishful thinking. I believe, however, that an effective constitution could, with luck, be rebuilt there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters), who does not like listening to my speeches and has left the Chamber, suggests that the EEC approach should be to force the unilateral withdrawal of Israel. That would be a major disaster and would merely hand over the whole of the Lebanon to Syria which would be entirely against our interests. On the contrary there are legitimate objects. Those objects, which should be pursued by the Government, are the withdrawal of Israel, because Israel is making no territorial claims, after the disarming of the PLO, the withdrawal of Syria except for strategic points and the re-establishment of a viable and sovereign Lebanese State.
This is undoubtedly the wish of the great bulk of the Lebanese people, whether they are Jews, Christian or Muslim, or even those of the much abused area called Hadabland. It has been seen that people of all religions can work effectively together. This could be made to work. Even in the days of the Ottoman Empire between 1861 and 1914 there was a State, Mount Lebanon, an enclave that was independent of the Ottoman Empire and that was run by a Christian, admittedly from outside, appointed by the Sultan and imposed on the Sultan of Turkey by the Western powers of the day.
Those who knew Lebanon between 1943 and 1960 saw how well it could function as a State. As hon. Members have said, there may have to be support, in the sense of a peacekeeping force. That is something that we should


seriously consider, especially if the United States was prepared to provide such a force. If it was asked to do so by a free Lebanese Government, we should seriously consider sending a contingent. The Prime Minister was asked about the matter this afternoon, and she said that she was not considering it at the moment. However, the time could come when that was necessary and worth while, provided that a Government could be set up in the Lebanon who were truly independent of Israel, Syria and the PLO. That is not an impossible dream. I believe that it could happen.
I turn now to the effect on the negotiations—what is called the Camp David initiative. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said, the peace process has been exhausted. It could be set up in the same way one could set up a State which, to use his phrase, is not a banana Christian State in the Lebanon. In my view, a proper State could be set up there. I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on that matter.
I also disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about the negotiations which could be restarted on the autonomy process. There is no doubt that the destruction of the PLO, with its considerable military machine and its terrorist organisation used by many countries, not only Arab but European, will lead to the emergence of a new leadership among the Palestinians. That is a real possibility. As a result of the change of power in the Middle East which Israel has effected, there will be a greater chance of Jordan becoming involved. The first principle of the Camp David declaration is that there should be negotiation on the broad issues between the Governments of Israel, Egypt and Jordan, and an involvement of the Palestinian people to that end. I believe that that is still a possibility. It is a possibility which one sincerely hopes will evolve from the present horrors which face the Middle East.
Of course there are difficulties, and a lot of negotiation is necessary, but just to indulge in mindless attacks on the people and State of Israel, and just to suggest that what is needed is a new initiative such as took place in Venice, with all its danger, is not a contribution to peace, but a contribution to continuing discord and destruction in the Middle East.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that a large number of hon. Members wish to speak, and that the number who are called will depend on the length of speeches.

Mr. Frank Hooley: My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) said that the nature of Israeli society was changing, and he is right. Israel now has a racist, militarist and neo-Fascist Government, and the country itself is rapidly developing into a racist society.
In March 1978 the first major invasion of the Lebanon took place—what the Israelis now call by the code word Litani I. In that process, about 1,000 people were killed, thousands were maimed and injured, and 250,000 were driven out of their homes and became refugees. The PLO fought a successful engagement on that occasion, and disengaged with its organisation more or less intact.
There were two results from the 1978 Lebanese war. First, there was the creation of UNIFIL, the United Nations peacekeeping force, largely on the initiative of President Carter. Subsequently, there was the initiation of the Camp David negotiations, into which President Carter threw the whole of his energy and prestige.
I should like to quote a couple of significant phrases from the Camp David agreement. First, it was said that
the parties are determined to reach a just, comprehensive, and durable settlement of the Middle East conflict".
It went on to say:
Their purpose is to achieve peace and good neighbourly relations. They recognise that, for peace to endure, it must involve all those who have been most deeply affected by the conflict.
That is a sound statement, but it does not seem to have been observed, either in the spirit or the letter, on one side at least. Broadly speaking, Egypt has observed its commitment at Camp David. The Israelis certainly evacuated Sinai, although the Israeli army had to be brought in to drag some fanatics screaming and kicking out of Yamit.
However, on the other parts of the Camp David agreement, far from there being any progress on the Palestinians' position on the West Bank, there has been savage repression, which has attracted international condemnation, involving, on one unfortunate occasion, the shooting of schoolchildren in cities on the West Bank. There has been the expansion of settlements, both on the West Bank and in the Golan area. About 35 per cent. of the land area of the West Bank has been expropriated from Arab ownership and taken, under one pretext or another, into Israeli ownership.
The Knesset has purported to annex the Golan area, which is part of the sovereign territory of Syria and recognised as such by the entire international community. The bombing of Beirut attracted international condemnation, because of the scale of the casualties among the civilian population. Last year there was the ceasefire agreement between Israel and the PLO, which was subsequently broken by the Israelis. Is that Israel's idea, in the words of the Camp David agreement, of
peace and good neighbourly relations"?
Now we have the exercise known as Litani II. As has been said by several hon. Members, about 10,000 people, probably more—I expect that we shall never know the true number—have been killed. Thousands more have been wounded and, according to the Lebanese Government, about 600,000 people have been driven out of their homes and turned again into refugees.
What are the objectives of the Israeli Government in this exercise? Do they seriously believe that they will be able to dictate the political map of the Lebanon? Do they intend to carry out a major military thrust at Syria along the line of the Bekaa Valley, which is an important highway for Syrian security? It poses serious military problems for the Syrian Government if Israel continues to pursue, as would appear to be the case from the news today, military objectives in that direction.
Does Israel want to destroy the PLO or massacre the Palestinian population? What precisely does Israel think it is trying to do in this bestial, savage attack that has been launched into the Lebanon, and, notionally at any rate, against the PLO? We should remind ourselves that most of the victims of the war so far have probably been the Lebanese civil population. Many Palestinians have been


killed and injured, but a great many more Lebanese, who, as has been pointed out, have no quarrel at all with the Israelis, have also been injured.
What has happened to the PLO since Camp David? It has gained greater and greater international recognition. It has consolidated the concept of a Palestinian State. It is now becoming widely accepted in international circles that that must come about if there is to be a realistic settlement in the Middle East.
It is reasonable to quote the Venice declaration, although it has been much criticised. Section 7 discusses the need for Palestinian self-determination and states:
The achievement of these objectives requires the involvement and support of all the parties concerned in the peace settlement which the Nine are endeavouring to promote in keeping with the principles formulated in the declaration referred to above. These principles apply to all the parties concerned, and thus the Palestinian people, and to the PLO, which will have to be associated with the negotiations.
Last year Israel was forced, for the first time, to enter into negotiations on a ceasefire with the PLO, although it did so at one remove.
No one can destroy a genuine national liberation movement by war. That was tried by the French in Algeria against the FLN, by the Americans in Vietnam against the Vietcong, by Smith and company against ZANU in Rhodesia, by the Portuguese against Frelimo, by the Portuguese in Angola against the MPLA, it is being tried by the South Africans against SWAPO and it is being tried by the Moroccans in the Sahara against the Polisario. Since the Second World War, every time that massive force has been used—even by a country as rich and powerful as the United States of America—it has failed to destroy the genuine national aspirations of a people who have felt themselves to be subjugated or unjustly treated.
The PLO was written off in 1970 after black September and after the quarrel with the Syrians. It will no doubt be written off again by the Israelis when the present exercise is over. However, no matter how brutal and savage the assault against the Palestinians, they will continue to fight for their national existence. Indeed, some of us wonder what is happening to the Palestinian captives who are now in the hands of Israeli soldiers. It is sometimes assumed that the problem exists outside Palestine's boundaries—in Lebanon, Jordan and so on. However, there are 2 million Palestinians in Palestine. What is their future? They will not tolerate being put into a Bantustan or being treated as second-rate citizens in their own country. Until their national position as a people, with their own State, passports, Government and leaders, is fully internationally recognised there will not be any semblance of peace in the Middle East.
President Carter's achievement in setting up UNIFIL with the co-operation of the Western world and other countries was important and was another stage in the peacekeeping process carried out by the United Nations. It should be of grave concern to the West that it has been treated with absolute contempt by Israel. If Israel is allowed to treat it in this way, the authority of the United Nations will be undermined, together with the whole process of developing peacekeeping efforts and gaining experience in peacekeeping exercises in the dangerous world of nuclear weapons.
Whatever peacekeeping arrangements are organised after Israel has been compelled to evacuate southern Lebanon, they should come under the authority of the United Nations, should be in its name and should be

controlled direct by the Security Council. We should not accept the notion of an American cordon sanitaire round Palestine, with an American force in Sinai, another in the Lebanon and perhaps one along the border with Jordan. Whatever its shortcomings, we must restore the prestige and authority of the United Nations, to ensure that it is at the centre of peacekeeping efforts wherever trouble occurs.
Many hon. Members have stressed the necessity for immediate international relief. Humanitarian aid is of overwhelming importance in this tragic disaster that has struck a civilian population of about half a million people. Those relief measures must include access by the International Red Cross to the prisoners in the hands of the Israeli forces.
Secondly, Western Europe must exert all its diplomatic and economic strength to compel Israeli withdrawal. This is not just a matter for the United States. If the countries of Europe act in concert, they have sufficient power and influence to exert strong pressure. We must also ensure that we have an effective United Nations force, and the Western world must demonstrate its determination to support it this time. Lastly, we must recognise the legitimacy of the PLO and press for the self-determination of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the principles enunciated by the Venice declaration.
In 1967 the Israelis were triumphant in their war against the armies of Egypt and Syria. They believed that they could sit on the Golan heights and Sinai and remain secure in their military triumph for a long time. Six years later they were back at war, and their military triumph on that occasion was much more precarious. They are wrong to suppose that from this invasion—whatever the military outcome—they will assure themselves of the security that they seek. The Israelis will achieve security only if they sit down at the same table as the PLO, as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people, and negotiate a permanent peace.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I agreed with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) when he spoke about the Middle East but I disagreed with him when his horizons lifted.
Having sought this overdue debate, I welcome the common approach that has been highlighted on the two Front Benches and the Liberal Bench. I also welcome the House's recognition of the need for urgent and massive international relief to the Lebanon and for the immediate removal of all barriers in the way of that relief.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary why on earth must injured children die tonight in the Lebanon while fully trained and equipped medical teams remain in enforced idleness, forbidden to enter the area?
Fears were voiced in many quarters that Israel, under its present extraordinary leadership, would use the crisis in the South Atlantic to cover further military measures against its Arab neighbours. Following the colonisation and repression on the West Bank, the outrageous bombing of the Iraqi reactor—as if one can deny Arab people the peaceful use of nuclear energy—and the virtual annexation of the Golan heights, the world waited to see what the new measures might be. Where next for the world's rogue elephant?
The exiled Palestinians in the Lebanon always seemed to be in danger once Egypt had been neutralised by Camp


David, and the peacekeeping force of which we form a part. Now Mr. Begin and Mr. Sharon, who many of us saw on television last night, are working on the supposition that the PLO's political influence in the occupied territories can be eliminated once its military capability is destroyed. The plan that we all now perceive is to move any surviving Palestinians in the Lebanon to Syria or further afield. The Palestinians will once again be designated refugees and will become dispersed, gipsy-like communities for ever on the move, as were the Jews for generations.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Townsend: Is there no hope? Are the bloodshed and destruction bound to continue for decades? I say a hundred times "No". What has happened was not inevitable. It flowed from a lack of international understanding of the issues at the heart of the Middle East dispute and a lack of statesmanship by the world's leaders.
Great responsibility rests on America. For too long it has allowed Middle East policy to be a mere extension of domestic policy. Its professional diplomats understand that they have made a basic error of judgment where American interests are concerned. The United States of America had wished to accelerate the autonomy talks, but it must now recognise that Camp David is permanently under the recently blown sand. It would be a major mistake for the Reagan Administration to return to the carcases of old policies. What is needed is a complete rethinking of America's approach to the Middle East before Western influence in the Arab world is also buried.
Having made Israel the predominant power in that part of the world, America must now explain to Israel—it is no more than the truth—that conquering one's neighbours, far from bringing peace, will bring only ever more ferocious fighting, if not this year or the next, within a decade. I cannot believe that it is a good time to bring up small children in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Israel's future security depends on its having more friends than enemies in the Middle East, and on learning to live with its proud but divided Arab neigbours and with a Palestinian State. The indiscriminate bombing and blasting by Israeli soldiers and airmen in the Lebanon will not and cannot alter the basic fact that peace can be achieved only when the Palestinians have their own land in Palestine.
Britain and the European Community must show that not only do we recognise that the Middle East remains unfinished business but that we can put together and see through a long-term initiative in conjunction with America. To obtain the prompt withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the Lebanon, all members of the European Community should be prepared immediately to cut off supplies of arms and spares to Israel and, if necessary, to impose economic sanctions. I ask the Government one direct question: do they agree with that suggestion?
What has happened in the Lebanon during the past three weeks has been a cruel, savage and unnecessary disaster resulting from actions that fall far below acceptable standards of civilised conduct. Let us all hope and pray that out of the suffering of the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples, out of the scarred streets of Sidon and out of the blackened debris of Beirut will come a new international comprehension and will to obtain a comprehensive, honourable and lasting peace. Or do we have to wait until nuclear weapons extend the limits of death and destruction beyond the confines of the Middle East?

Mr. James Callaghan: I have listened to the debate, but I had no intention of intervening. It is a most important debate, and one or two of the contributions have compelled me to rise. I say at once that I agree with the last sentiment in the speech of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend).
The moving speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) touched the spirit of many Members; and his approach, if carried through, could command a great deal of support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) referred to the statements made in the Camp David agreement. He said that the sentiments that were included were extremely laudable. I agree, but they were not only laudable but were accepted by both sides.

Mr. Hooley: And signed by both sides.

Mr. Callaghan: Immediately after concluding the Camp David agreement I saw, or spoke on the telephone to, both Mr. Sadat and Mr. Begin. Mr. Begin came to Chequers. There is no doubt that at that time Mr. Begin, as the Prime Minister, had committed himself to a degree of autonomy which, I regret to say, he has not subsequently carried out. Much of the responsibility for the failure to proceed arises from Mr. Begin's failure in that matter.
What troubles me at the moment is the enthusiasm—I do not wish to range over the whole ground—with which some people are now proclaiming immediate self-determination for the Palestinians. That is not practicable. The command structure of the PLO has been destroyed. It is in no position to enforce self-determination, whether it be right or wrong. It cannot do so, because the might of Israel is too great. What is the point, therefore, except in stating a principle, in calling for immediate self-determination? Similarly, it is of no advantage to Britain or to the securing of peace in the Middle East for those who support Mr. Begin—I have not heard many of them tonight—to encourage continuing Israeli intransigence.
The virtue of Camp David, even though the term is abused now—never let it be forgotten that Camp David has provided for the first time a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, and is a profound historical document—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I shall not give way now because I do not wish to take up other hon. Members' time. I am intervening in a debate in which I know others have prepared their speeches. I have not. I want simply to make a brief intervention and then sit down.
I wish that the Foreign Secretary would be more than lukewarm about the process of autonomy. We cannot support Mr. Begin's Government in their complete


intransigence, nor is it possible for peace in the Middle East to support the idea of immediate self-determination. That was what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley appeared to be moving towards.
The wisdom of the agreement by Sadat, Begin and Carter was that there was to be an interim period in which the Palestinians should gain more powers, which I believed at that time, and which Begin almost conceded at that time, should include legislative powers as well as mere administrative powers. Mr. Begin has gone back on that, but it was the intention that the Palestinians should have those powers. If that could be conceded so that each side could learn to live together and grow together and if, at the end of a fixed period—I do not know whether it is four or five years—there were a determination as to what should be the future of the Palestinians, is not that the path of wisdom? Is not that the best path for British interests to pursue? It is better than saying that we support self-determination for the Palestinians tomorrow. I know that the Foreign Secretary did not say that, but some people imply it. We shall not get peace that way but a bloody war, which may be extended.
Although the term "Camp David" may be blighted and forgotten because the other Arab States do not like it, although Mr. Begin may approve of much more intransigence and has gone back on some of the statements that he made to me and although the Palestinians feel, as they undoubtedly do at the moment, that they are a minority that has been beset, abused and grossly ill-treated, surely the path for Britain to take is to say that we want to go on with the process of encouraging those people who live together and saying to Israelis and Palestinians "You cannot have your full objectives now. If you want peace above all and if you want to avoid nuclear war above all, you cannot have your total objectives at this stage, but both of you can have something that will give security to one and will move towards the aspirations of the other, with the hope that in due course they can come together."
I agree with those who want to see a larger arrangement in the Middle East. I have had conversations with these people over many years. There is no reason why the Israelis, the Jordanians and the Palestinians cannot come to an intergovernmental arrangement to develop that area.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I have noted your remarks, Mr. Speaker. I assure the House that my speech will be short.
I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and that he intervened in the debate, because his speech was wise and born of experience. I am happy to say that I should like to be associated with the remarks that he made.
I shall confine my remarks to the invasion of Lebanon by Israel. That has been the main topic of debate tonight. The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) talked about provocation that he had witnessed in Israel. In view of the undoubted mounting acts of aggression against Israel by PLO forces and terrorists, it came as no surprise that Israeli forces advanced into South Lebanon. The surprise, if any, was the extent of their advance and their stern determination to destroy the PLO as a military force.
The appalling loss of civilian life and widespread destruction of property that that determination occasioned, perhaps to some extent inevitably, produced understand-able reactions of protest and horror expressed not just abroad but in Israel itself, where concern and criticism have been freely expressed, as one would expect in a democracy.
Of course, the Israeli Government see that as a sad but just fight for the protection of their citizens and for the security of their territory. There can be, and will continue to be, I have no doubt, arguments as to whether the cost outweighed the cause. There can be no argument as to the Israelis' military successes in pursuing their main objectives. I see no value in engaging in crimination. We serve our interests better if we consider whether anything positive can emerge from the grave position that now obtains. It is clear that Israeli forces must withdraw from the Lebanon. Israel accepts that, but pressure should now be brought to demand not just the withdrawal of those forces but the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the Lebanon.
We in the West should be prepared to give all the assistance that we can towards the reconstruction of a truly independent Lebanon. That will be no easy task, but the chance of the emergence of a stable and effective government in the Lebanon is probably greater now than it has been for years. If such a government were to emerge, it could well be a solution to many of the problems recently faced in the Middle East and would certainly be a source of encouragement to those moderate Arab States whose friendships are so important to us in the West. I hope that that is something that the Government will not reject. It is the course advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser). I hope that the Government will consider that and will work closely in co-operation with the United States of America.
The attitude that the key to Middle East peace lies in negotiations between Israel and the PLO must clearly be abandoned. That is and always has been an illusion. There can never be a sufficient meeting of minds between Israel and the PLO. Arab aspirations on the West Bank can only be attained if Israel is confident of her security. A major contribution to that confidence would be a stable, independent and friendly Lebanon. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone that there

is now a chance—I put it no higher—that recent events have made that possible. If that happens, the Israeli Government, freed from the PLO military menace, can concentrate on the autonomy talks regarding the West Bank and Gaza and the difficult and important issue of finding a lasting solution to the Palestine problem. It is on that that peace in the Middle East depends.

Mr. Greville Janner: I have listened to all the speeches tonight with great interest. I wonder whether there is one element which could unite us all even though we take such differing points of view. Surely that must be our anxiety for the suffering of innocent people on both sides of the Lebanese-Israel border; throughout the Middle East; in Iraq and Iran; the 98,000 Lebanese who died before the outbreak of the present fighting, as well as the Lebanese who have been recently killed, whether they were taking part in the war, or were in hospitals or schools used as bases for artillery. Innocent people have died and are suffering.
We are right also to debate this subject because it affects some of us very personally. From the spillover of suffering in the Middle East comes bloodshed here. I add my tribute to Ambassador Argov, who we all hope will recover his health speedily and fully.
Unfortunately, it is not only Ambassador Argov who has fallen to the terrorist bullet. In another capacity I went to Vienna to visit the Jewish community after two men shouting "PLO, PLO" sprayed bullets at people coming out of prayer and killed two of them. I have been to Antwerp where a bomb outside a synagogue on a holy day killed non-Jewish people, completely innocent. There is a wave of terror which unfortunately spreads out from the Middle East and involves the lives of too many innocent people throughout the world.
One area of common ground that should be shared with the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, is his concern about this terror. I received a letter from him not so long ago in which he wrote:
The unreserved condemnation by this government and the Nine of terrorism in all its forms is a matter of record. You may be sure also that every opportunity is taken, in the contacts which officials have with the PLO, to stress to them that the PLO must renounce its involvement with terrorism and that such terrorism is a major impediment to a Middle East peace settlement. We shall continue to make our views forcibly known.
I much regret that neither of the Front Bench spokesmen today saw fit to express that view.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. and learned Gentleman has catalogued a series of terrorist crimes. Will he include and add to the list of terrorist crimes that he has been talking about the murder, mutilation and killing of 14,000 people in the Lebanon by the Israelis in the past two weeks?

Mr. Janner: No. Unfortunately, those of us who have been soldiers know that there is little horror that war does not bring with it. No crime can be worse than that committed by those who claim to be freedom fighters or soldiers and who bury their headquarters, their armaments, their missiles and their artillery in refugee camps, hospitals, schools, and in other places where they have ensured that unfortunate civilians are held before them as shields. They do so in the hope that people such as the hon. Gentleman will make precisely the point that he has. If we wish to make any contribution towards a civilised debate, it is necessary to recognise another side of the issue that


neither Front Bench spokesman—[Interruption.] Those who wish to take part in a civilised debate will no doubt ask themselves why it is that the nation of Israel, which treasures every one of its own people—

Mr. Faulds: You can say that again.

Mr. Janner: Yes. Israel is a tiny country in which every life is treasured, and its people do not go to war because they enjoy it. The Israelis wish to bring their soldiers home.
Mention has already been made of an alleged lack of provocation. There have been about 290 attacks on Israelis, on Jewish people and on other innocents, gunned down by the PLO and its affiliates since 24 July 1981.

Mr. Faulds: Who told you that?

Mr. Janner: The last person to talk to Ambassador Argov before he was shot down was Archbishop Bruno Heim, the Pope's Ambassador to the Court of St. James's. The archbishop was beside Ambassador Argov when he was shot. He was later informed by the police that he survived only because the gun jammed when it was swung round at him after having been aimed at the ambassador.

Mr. Faulds: Zionist make-believe.

Mr. Janner: I think that the House will draw its own conclusion from the buffoon obscenity which emerges when a man like Archbishop Heim is insulted.

Mr. Faulds: It is strange that we have not had reports of that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair for the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) to make a running commentary when another point of view has been advanced at considerable length in the House. The House has been anxious to hear both points of view with care.

Mr. Janner: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.
We have one great joy in this country and especially in the House: even a point of view which is unpopular is heard. I have listened while hon. Friends on the whole have quoted Israelis attacking the Israeli Government. They have that privilege because that is the only democracy in the Middle East. Anyone in an Arab country who dared attack the Government would be shot dead. That is why I disagree totally with those who maintain that there is no greater possibility now than there was before of an emergence of some form of communication between Arabs and Israelis. Anyone who has been to Israel will know that the fear of PLO shooting is not confined to the relatives of the Imam of the Gaza mosque who was shot dead by them, or to the dozens of others who have suffered because of the actions of an organisation which is, alas, terrorist.
If one wants to know the nature of the organisation, one might do no better than look at the lead letter in today's Yorkshire Post which was handed to me a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall), who is unfortunately unlikely to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I should like to read only a couple of paragraphs to give a clear indication of the views of this English lady, who is married to an Arab who lived in the Lebanon, Mrs. Frances Atib:
I can honestly say that I do not support the PLO. They are an evil group of people. The Lebanese people hate them and so do most of the civilised decent Arab people. During the last month we watched the PLO turn our apartment block into a

military fortress. The forecourt where our children used to play was filled by four large artillery guns. Further arms trucks and a huge pile of ammunition were placed right under the flats, like many homes in the Middle East built on stilts. It was a horrific sight. As my husband sadly forecast at the time, many civilians would be killed if the PLO were to be engaged in battle. I wished I had been there when the Israeli army finally freed my beloved village from the PLO. They must have been welcomed with open arms by the people".
I am not a supporter of the right hon. Lady and her Government, but that does not mean that actions taken by that Government are necessarily wrong. If I lived in Israel I certainly would not support Mr. Begin or his Government, but that does not mean that that democratically elected Government are wrong in the view they take about the actions necessary to defend their people from an attack by an organisation such as the PLO.
When the Israelis crossed the border they found a build-up of war supplies which was to be aimed at them. They found far more than they had expected. There were over 100 tanks of the most modern and sophisticated kind supplied by the Soviet Union and over 1,000 missiles of the most dangerous variety also supplied by the Soviet Union. They discovered a total arsenal which was there not to defend anyone against anything but to carry out the PLO's job, which is, was and, so far as I know, will be likely to remain the total destruction of the State of Israel and, if necessary, to do so by methods of terror.

Mr. John Dunlop: Would the hon. and learned Member agree that they found there also many elements of the IRA being trained and equipped for their war against the people in Ulster, their so-called gallant fight for freedom, which the stupid Americans and other people talk about sometimes? Would he agree that that is where these people have been trained and equipped for their war against Britain in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Janner: I cannot confirm what the hon. Gentleman says, but I have it on the excellent authority of an Israeli Cabinet Minister, who came here, alas, to attend a memorial service for my father on Sunday, that the Israelis uncovered many tons of documents showing the international nature of terrorism, and that they also captured nationals from many countries who were being trained for the terrorist organisations of those countries. I have no information whatever about the IRA, but evidence of the international nature of terrorism has certainly been unearthed during this operation.
More than 50 per cent. of the population of Israel are themselves refugees from Arab countries. They have settled in a land where they wish to live in peace and where they have made peace with Egypt. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) so forcefully said, it takes two sides to achieve an agreement like the Camp David agreement. I was therefore shocked when a Conservative Member, referring to the grief in the United States at the assassination of President Sadat, criticised the Americans for taking it as a personal matter. We should all have taken it as a personal grief because he was one of the greatest men that some of us have ever been privileged to meet. He was the architect of a miraculous peace settlement—not on his own, but with the much-maligned Mr. Begin, who leads a very Right-wing Government that many of us would never support but who nevertheless helped to bring that about. I was also shocked at the criticism of Mr. Begin for the way in which he moved people out of Sinai in order to honour the


agreement that he had made. We must disagree very much with him, but he honoured that agreement in a way that caused great problems in his own country.
If the British Government wish to play any role in the future, they must be regarded as a Government who take a fair and balanced view and are not protagonists of any one side in this sad dispute. I was saddened by the speeches of both Front Bench spokesmen, as I believe that anyone hearing them would now regard both sides as protagonists of one party in the conflict, thus putting this country out of the role of helping in the peacemaking process.
Finally, I add as a postscript a paragraph from one of the remarkable articles by Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, headed
Israel's Alternative: The peace of death",
in which he says:
When all of Israel's neighbours follow Egypt's example, in accepting Israel's right to existence, and when none of these states any longer harbours armed terrorists pledged to Israel's destruction, then the idea of a Palestinian state will begin to become compatible with Israel's right to existence. It may be that the week's events"—
the events in Lebanon—
will have the effect of bringing Israel and it neighbours nearer to that point.
We must all pray that that will come about, and we must each in our own way do what we can to achieve that end and, in particular, an end to suffering throughout that tortured region.

Mr. Michael Latham: I am pleased to follow the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). In the first minute of my speech I wish to make a personal point and say why I am, and always have been, a fervent supporter of the State of Israel. I am not a Jew and I have no personal or constituency interest in the matter. I support the State of Israel, as I am sure that other hon. Members support the PLO, out of a sense of personal conviction and emotion.
I believe that the creation of the State of Israel and its courageous defence by its citizens ever since has been an inspiring cause. Whenever I have had doubts, I have gone to Yad Vashem or looked at pictures of it—the memorial in Jerusalem to the holocaust, to the millions of Jews butchered by the Nazi beasts and to the determination of the children of those who survived the gas chambers to have a State of their own in which Jews could live in freedom in the land with which their people had identified since Titus sacked the Second Temple in AD70.
If there is one political aim and political fact that means everything to me, it is that throughout the 20 centuries of diaspora, pogrom, persecution and horror, some of the Jewish people have remained in the land of Israel, clinging to the soil from which so many have tried to expel them. Conquerors have come and gone since the birth of Christ—Romans, Persians, Omayyads, Mamelukes, Saracens, Franks, Turks and British. But the Jews have remained. All over the world other Jews have prayed and dreamt of their return. No other nation has had Jerusalem as its capital except the Jews. I am proud that it was three Great Britons and Members of the House—David Lloyd George, Arthur Balfour and Sir Winston Churchill—who did much to establish the modern State for the Jewish people.
There is one objective fact that should never be forgotten or ignored when we discuss modern Israel. The Jew is not going to leave the Middle East. There will be no settlement in the region that is not acceptable to Israel. If the Jewish people had listened to the diplomats, the compromisers and timid anti-Zionists, there would have been no Jewish State today.
The Jews accepted the British mandatory Government's offer to set up a Jewish agency in 1923. The Arabs refused. The Jews accepted the Peel Commission report in 1937, which recommended partition. The Arabs refused. The Jews supported the United Nations in setting up the Unscop inquiry. The Arabs boycotted it. The General Assembly on 29 November 1947 gave a two-thirds majority to the Unscop plan. The outcome was brutal war. Through the oceans of Jewish blood that has been spilt over the centuries, the link between the people and their land has endured.
Why do the Israeli people not negotiate with the PLO? Why are they not content with their pre-1967 borders? I do not favour a Zionist Greater Israel annexing the West Bank, any more than I agree with an Arab Greater Syria swallowing up the Lebanon. But Syria, which has never properly recognised the Lebanon, has always thought in those terms ever since the French mandatory power deposed the Emir Faisal from the throne of Syria in 1920 and set up Lebanon as a separate entity especially created from previous Turkish sub-provinces, with a French governor.
I do not believe that the area that is described in United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 of 29 November 1947 as "Judaea and Samaria" belongs automatically to Israel or to Jordan. I consider that its status is undetermined. The last legal owner was the British mandatory power, which itself acted with dubious legality when Sir Winston Churchill, after the Cairo conference of 1921, put the Emir Faisal on the throne of Iraq and made his brother the Emir Abdullah the independent ruler of a newly invented country of Transjordan, contrary to the decisions of the San Remo conference.
This was also wholly contrary to the spirit of the MacMahon correspondence with Sherif Husain and was in accordance with the cynical diplomacy of the secret Sykes-Picot agreement. Only two countries have ever recognised the Jordanian annexation between 1950 and 1967, one of which was Britain. That annexation was no more legal in terms of treaties than would Mr. Begin's annexation of the same territories be now. It was based solely on the rights of conquest by a belligerent Power. It is not even clear whether Jordan still maintains a territorial claim over what it calls the West Bank or whether this claim was vacated in favour of the PLO at the Rabat conference of 1974.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said in a letter to me on 4 May:
Our contacts with the Jordanian Government leave us in no doubt that she maintains that claim. We understand that the Jordanians regard the decision at Rabat as one about who should speak politically for the Palestinians, and that this decision does not, in the Jordanian view, affect the question of Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank.

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: With regard to the sovereignty of the West Bank, does my hon. Friend agree that the people who live there have a strong interest in its status? That is the right way to look at it, not to pursue some legalistic argument, which we


have heard over a number of years, about the authority of the British mandate and the authority of the Jordanian Government to incorporate it into Jordan.

Mr. Latham: I shall deal precisely with that point in a moment when I talk about autonomy, because that is what it is all about.
If Jordan still claims the West Bank, why does it not take immediate steps to assert its claim through diplomacy, just as it took steps to protect its territorial integrity when it expelled the PLO in 1970 after the PLO had tried to assassinate King Hussein? If there is no longer a Jordanian claim, but only a recognition of the PLO, the Israeli settlements on the West Bank cannot be illegal in international law, as there is no undisputed sovereign owner of that territory. The PLO is not, of course, a sovereign power.
Whatever the legal ownership, I see no reason why the West Bank as a whole should be regarded as Judenrein. The whole of Transjordan was deliberately kept free of Jews by the British, and has been so ever since.
If Jews wish to live in the historic areas of Judea and Samaria from which so much of their civilisation sprang, I see no reason why they should not do so. But that is not to determine the eventual status of the area. That remains to be settled in the context of an overall peace settlement in accordance with Security Council resolution 242.
What, then, should be the steps for progress on the West Bank? I now deal directly with my hon. Friend's intervention. The defeat of the PLO in Lebanon may allow for some more progress than has been possible since that organisation was set up in 1964—before the 1967 war—to eliminate Israel from all its borders. The PLO's aims have not changed. Farouk Khadoumi told the German magazine Stern on 30 July 1981:
We shall never allow Israel to live in peace … I shall make it perfectly clear to you. We shall never recognise Israel".
Only one solution remains on the table. It is not the Venice declaration, which has been rejected by both Israel and the PLO, or the Fahd plan, which collapsed like a house of cards when even the PLO, which was supposed to have drafted it, turned against it. Only the Camp David agreements remain, from which have flowed peace between Egypt and Israel. Negotiating 'with Israel has produced for Egypt the return of the whole of Sinai.
It is instructive to read directly from those sections of the Camp David accords which deal with the West Bank and Gaza. There are to be five years of transitional arrangements, during which a freely elected local administration is to emerge. The Government of Jordan will be involved in those discussions, which specifically refer to
the principle of self-government by the inhabitants of those territories".
The Palestinians are to be directly represented in the Egyptian and Jordanian delegations. There is to be a withdrawal of Israeli armed forces. Within three years of the establishment of the self-governing authority there are to be negotiations to determine the final status of the West Bank and Gaza and to conclude an Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty. Those negotiations are to include elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. The negotiations are to recognise the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and their just requirements. Their agreement is to be submitted to a vote by the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza.
As the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said, President Sadat and President Carter both saw that here was a tremendous opportunity for the West Bank Arabs. It could ultimately have led to a Palestinian autonomous State. Nothing in the Camp David accords ruled out such a solution, if only the PLO had not prevented the local Arabs from seizing the best opportunity they ever had to achieve something that there has never been—an autonomous Palestinian State with recognised borders. But the PLO rejected it, just as the Arabs rejected Peel, Unscop and so much else as well.
The reason is very clear. The PLO is not really interested in a mini-State on the West Bank, except as a preliminary to the ultimate extinction of what it calls the "Zionist entity" itself. It means what it says. There is no reason to disbelieve it. That is why Israel will never countenance handing over the West Bank to them, no matter how many resolutions are passed at the United Nations or at Venice.
I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that until this evening we had heard a good deal about Lebanon but rather less about the tremendous slaughter in Iraq and Iran. Syria, with which our relations are supposed to be "good", according to an answer by the Minister of State last week, went uncondemned when 12,000 of its troops with heavy artillery and Soviet tanks shelled and shot up Hama in February. At least 5,000 Hama Syrians were killed, and the death toll may be as high as 25,000, according to local diplomats there. What happened to the voice of the Security Council or the General Assembly over that?
If Israel shells the PLO that is called genocide, but if President Assad shells his own people it is ignored. Only yesterday, in answer to me, the Minister of State was repeating the Foreign Office line that the Syrian army is in Lebanon by virtue of a mandate from the Arab League and that UNIFIL remains in place. Surely, the key to peace in Lebanon must involve the removal of all external armed forces, including the PLO, and the establishment of a demilitarised zone in the southern part of the country. Why not say so now?
With that there should go a fresh diplomatic drive by the Government to get the autonomy talks back on the road. They have never had much support from Europe. But the changed situation in the Middle East may give fresh momentum to the only peace plan that has support from Israel, Egypt and the Americans. No Middle Eastern country has lifted a finger to help the PLO over the past two weeks. No Arab nation really wants the PLO. Out of the terrible carnage and wreckage of Lebanon, the Western Powers should now try to support their American allies.
Israel has shown over Sinai that it is prepared to cede territory in exchange for real peace between sovereign nations. That must the best road to follow.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Before calling the next speaker, may I remind the House that the debate ends at midnight. The winding-up speeches, I understand, will begin at 11.20 pm. It will be helpful if contributions are short.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I was hoping that the debate would concentrate on Lebanon. It is, goodness knows, a big enough problem. However, hon. Members have gone over a great deal of history, and I should like


to comment on some of the statements that have been made. I believe, for example, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) misinterpreted a point that I made about the build-up of Muslim fundamentalism in the Middle East, which he looked upon as a danger to the West. I tried to point out that, in that case, there should be a strengthening or cementing of these relations with each other, with the Arab countries, and with the Muslim countries because we should be concentrating on Israel. It is the fact that Israel is there that is the focal point for them. If Israel was not there, they would be free to engage in other activities that might be injurious to us. I shudder to think of the kind of choice that we, in this country, the United States and the other people of Europe would have to make if there was no State of Israel.
At the moment, we and those in other Western countries can make friendly overtures to any Arab country that we wish merely by evincing some kind of criticism of the State of Israel. That keeps things sweet for a little while. If, however, there were no State of Israel, we should have to start clarifying with whom we wished to be friends in the Middle East. None of us here is unaware that the strife in the area stems from all kinds of internecine difficulties and troubles. We would experience a considerable degree of difficulty if we had to try to sort out one possible friend from another. By making a friend of one, we would be making an enemy of all the others. That would be a recipe for disaster—or, at any rate, a possibility of disaster.
However, I do not want to comment on too many matters which do not relate directly to the Lebanon problem. The Foreign Secretary said that the scale of the Israeli attack was not justified. Who decided the scale of attack when we went to the Falkland Islands? No one but ourselves. In my opinion, the decision should be left to the people who think that they are to be attacked—not to other people.

Mr. Crouch: Fourteen thousand dead.

Dr. Miller: I shall come to that in a moment.
The Foreign Secretary said also that the invasion was a setback to the diplomatic process. What diplomatic process? Does he mean the constant reiteration of the desire to annihilate the State of Israel, backed by 20,000 guerrillas, armed to the teeth, in the Lebanon? What were they doing there? It was not a holiday camp. They were there to try to implement the desire that they had, ever since their founding in 1964, to obliterate the State of Israel.
In debating the Lebanon question, I find myself very much in agreement with my right hon. Friends the Members for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) and for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), both of whom made valuable contributions to our debate. I, too, feel that it is difficult to justify the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. I do not deny that. It is difficult to justify any invasion, not just the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It is not easy to justify any invasion, but some invasions are worse than others. It is a matter of regret—but none the less true—that the kind of world that we should like to live in does not exist. The world is still a jungle, and we are still a long way from

resolving our differences by peaceful means. It is unfortunate but true. Armed conflict is the option which, all too frequently, is chosen.
It has often been said that war does not solve problems. I agree with that statement, but, if I told a patient whose illness was incurable that I did not intend to give him anything for it, he would surely be entitled to ask for some palliative, or even something to relieve his pain. It is not enough to say to Israel "What you are doing will not solve your problems". Israel knows that, and we all know that, but at least it is a palliative in the absence of any other concrete plans. Anyone can put forward ideas, and no idea is better than another merely because of the person who puts it forward.
I deplore the violent upheaval in the Lebanon. I deplore the loss of life, especially among innocent civilians. I also deplore the callous indifference to human life of those who deliberately position their headquarters, operation rooms, and gun emplacements in the midst of civilian populations.

Mr. Crouch: When did they last fire a shell on Israel?

Dr. Miller: There have been many infringements of the ceasefire during the past year.
For a number of years, Lebanon has not been a sovereign and independent State. Its territorial integrity has completely disintegrated under the twin impact of the PLO's terrorism and Syrian military occupation. Israel has reacted to the escalating threats coming from those who wish to destroy her. I am not an admirer of Mr. Begin, but I have similar reservations about joining the fan club of the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister, although I believe that she was right to protect the British citizens of the Falkland Islands. We despatched an armada of 100 ships and a force of between 10,000 and 12,000 men to defend the liberty of people 8,000 miles away. How can that right be denied to the Israelis whose enemies are on their borders?
James Cameron expressed that view in The Guardian last Tuesday. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary is here, because I wish to quote from the article:
One of the stirring sights of the last few days was that of Mr. Francis Pym on television reproving the Israelis for resorting to armed violence in the Middle East. That is what I so deeply respect in politicians: their quality of detachment, of selective morality, of open hypocrisy openly expressed.
To be sure he was right: the Israelis were at that very moment shooting people some 40 miles outside their own frontier. Clearly it had slipped Mr. Pym's honest mind, in his righteous indignation, that HMG's own concerns were at that same moment even more remote, shooting people 8,000 miles away from the homeland. I wonder: did Mr. Pym feel an imminent threat of Argentine aggression on his back garden, as the Israelis, have had from the PLO for some 30 years?
I must admit that I do the Foreign Secretary some little injustice. He made a better speech than did my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. James Cameron was exaggerating a little in his criticism of the right hon. Gentleman.
One must consider the scale of carnage that occurs during wars. I am not justifying it, merely stating that it occurs. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) must remember that in the Second World War the British pulverised Hamburg, Berlin, the Ruhr and Dresden. Dresden was a pulverisation of civilians; there were no military installations there. That was done because there was a war and because we were in imminent danger of being swallowed by the Nazis. Therefore, we should avoid hypocrisy in what we say.

Mr. Crouch: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of palliatives. I know that he speaks sincerely of what he believes in. We still speak sincerely, even in the Middle East debates, when we could have had a holy war between the two views on the problem. Does he remember that his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that there had been casualties in Lebanon—up to 14,000 women, children and civilians dead? Apart from those casualties, does he not agree that the greatest casualty of the war resulting from the invasion of Lebanon has been the views held of the State of Israel in the rest of the world?

Dr. Miller: It has been said that the greatest casualty in war is truth. That is the first casualty. I have no better way of knowing than does the hon. Gentleman what the exact casualties are. All I know is that there has been an enormous number of casualties. There are no independent sources. One must not pretend that one side has all the truth when it comes to reporting.
Whether one likes it or not, and I do not, the trouble is that Israel has assumed the role of a militant peacemaker. The Israelis are acting as a police force because there is no effective international force that can do that work, although there should be.
As has been said before, there is hardly a country that is not at least secretly pleased at the hammering that the PLO has received. That is especially true of Israel's Arab neighbours.
It has also been said that the Israeli Labour Party issued a statement last week. Among its 11 points were the following.
The first point was that Israel must adhere scrupulously to the declared objectives of the "Peace for Galilee" operation. Point five was that an overall ceasefire based on reciprocity must be adhered to. Point eight was that there should be support for the establishment of an independent Lebanese Government with international assistance which does not depend upon the Israeli defence forces. Point nine stipulates that all foreign troops must be withdrawn from the Lebanon, leaving Lebanon to the Lebanese. The tenth point is that there should be negotiations with Jordan and participation of Palestinian representatives with the aim of coming closer to reaching peace and a political solution to problems which cannot be solved militarily.
Many references have been made to the criticisms voiced by Israelis and by the Israeli Parliament. In a democracy, criticisms are voiced. It is salutary to note that few similar criticisms have been made in those countries dedicated to Israel's destruction. Most wars result from disputes about sovereignty over a territory or stem from injured pride and from the need to protect one's nationals. Some wars have even been fought for economic reasons. However, the Arab-Israeli conflict is unique. It is the only conflict in which one side wants to eliminate the other. The Arabs have never recognised Israel's right to exist and for 34 years they have tried to annihilate it.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) quoted Conor Cruise O'Brien in The Observer of 13 June. The article's heading was
Israel's alternative: The peace of death".
Suicide is too high a price to be asked to pay, even for peace.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: In his excellent speech at the outset of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary appealed to hon Members not to make too many stereotype speeches which would merely mirror the prevailing passions of factions within the Middle East. However, the last few speeches have fallen into that trap.
In a conflict with such global implications, we should remember first and foremost that we are British Members of Parliament, who are here to look to the British and Western interests. One of the more worrying aspects of the present crisis is that a great divide may be opening up between the European and American perspectives on Western interests in the Middle East today. That great divide is caused not only by America's special relationship with Israel—a relationship so special that some American politicians seem to say "My Israel, right or wrong"—but by America's failure to realise the implications of the tidal wave of Islamic fundamentalism which is having a great effect, particularly on the conservative Arab Gulf States and on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has natural pro-American instincts, but in the long term such countries will be grieviously undermined in their pro-American, pro-Western stance unless there is a shift in American policy. I concurred with the distinguished speech made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). He pointed out that perhaps the greatest service that the House could do was to give some clear guidelines to our allies, the Americans, about the direction of their Middle Eastern policy.
In my brief speech I shall try to identify the long-term Western interests in the Middle East and suggest how best those interests can be supported. Perhaps the best way of doing that is to turn to the immediate theatres of conflict in Lebanon and elsewhere. Behind the horrors of the civilian dead in Lebanon lies a complex political situation. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) that many of the Lebanese have no great love for the Palestinians. It is a little-reported fact that as the Israeli troops went in they were cheered as liberators by many Muslim and Christian Lebanese. That background has led many people, including some hon. Members in the debate—notably my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser)—to echo the cry "Let us have a Lebanon for the Lebanese". It is a seductive cry at first glance for Western as well as Lebanese interests.
But who are the Lebanese? It is a country of contradictory discontents that is built on successive generations of refugees. For that reason, the Lebanese know deep down that the Palestinians cannot be driven out, much less exterminated, by Israeli aggression. Surely the old maxim that the guerrilla wins if he does not lose will continue to be true in Lebanon as in other countries. The PLO guerrillas will regroup in the hills, bloody but unbowed, or there will be the more sinister development that the extemists in the terrorist movement will come to the fore and carry their terrorist warfare perhaps even to Europe and America.
However successful the present Israeli military operation is, the PLO will be back in business in months rather than years. Although some Lebanese may long for a Syrian withdrawal and a weakening of the PLO, "Lebanon for the Lebanese" is an unrealistic idea until a


Palestinian solution is found. Whatever the short-term military attractions of the Israeli invasion, the best that can be said is that it is buying time for Israel at the price of enormously increasing bitterness. The Israelis are sowing a wind to reap a whirlwind. Western policy makers should not be diverted by the short-term advantages of the position in Lebanon into believing that there is any substitute for a serious move towards the creation of a land for the Palestinians.
All calculations about the delays or about a Palestinian phoenix rising from the ashes of West Beirut today could be accelerated by the activities of the revolutionary Islamic fundamentalists in Iran and elsewhere. I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East that we have all gravely underestimated the force of that movement. It is by far the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East. Western interests in the area are threatened by the followers of Ayatollah Khomeini. That revolutionary force for change is dedicated to the overthrow of more conservative Governments and regimes that are neither revolutionary nor fundamentalist. As a sixteenth century verse said of European religious warriors, the present Islamic fundamentalists are determined
to prove their doctrine orthodox by apostolic blows and knocks.
The Iranian Shi'ites and their followers are determined to create havoc in that area. They have already won a war against Iraq, formed dramatic alliances with Libya and Syria, narrowly missed pulling off a major coup in Bahrein and given huge support to the PLO. They will stir up massive trouble in the Arab world in years to come unless the moderates in that world are seen to aid and abet progress towards a settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute.
Let us consider Saudi Arabia, which internally has never been more stable. The recent tranquil accession to the throne by King Fahd only emphasises the good record of the Saudi Royal Family, which has ruled that country peacefully and popularly for nearly 50 years. However, externally, Saudi Arabia is threatened by the storm clouds that are gathering beyond its borders. Khomeini and Begin represent problems that cannot be solved by the traditional Saudi weapon—the cheque book.
The new king must show great international statesmanship. Fortunately, while crown prince he showed a flair for diplomacy and statesmanship unequalled by any previous Saudi monarch. The Fahd plan, about which we heard so much last year, was a very hopeful and imaginative proposal for peace in the Middle East. Despite its demise at the Fez summit at the hands principally of the Syrians, the Fahd plan would almost certainly have been resuscitated during the next few months had it not been so sadly overtaken by events in Lebanon in the past few weeks.
Now King Fahd, as leader of the Arab moderates, will have to try again. As he is a pro-United States Arab leader he will seek Western and particularly United States support in his efforts. Yet, without the backing of Washington, peacemaking in the Middle East is like trying to clap hands with one hand.
The key to the situation in the Middle East is the future of the United States—Israel relationship. At present Washington is letting Israel get away with murder and has been doing so for a considerable time. Whether it is Israel annexing the Golan Heights, whether it is Israel bombing

the Iraqi reactors in Baghdad, whether it is Israel expanding its illegal settlements or whether it is Israel embarking on the present totally disproportionate wave of bloody aggression in which some 14,000 eyes are being taken for one eye, what has been the American reaction? It has been the diplomatic equivalent of giving Mr. Begin a weak slap on the wrist.
There has to come a moment when the United States Administration stop their present policy towards Israel of talking softly and carrying a big floppy handkerchief in the face of such disgraceful Israeli outrages. There is a cynical reason—not in the interests of justice or humanity—that one might appeal to, a cynical reason why America should change her policy.
The interests of the United States and her Western allies depend on stopping the present trend of Israeli policy. That policy stems from the belief that her Arab neighbours are out to destroy Israel. In fact, what those Arab neighbours really want is exactly what the Israelis themselves wanted before 1948, a homeland for a dispossessed people. That is the direction in which American policy should now go.

Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: I am sure that the House will agree that the continuing conflicts in the Middle East remain the most potent threat to world peace. A solution to the complex and ever-changing problems has evaded statesmen, Governments and the United Nations for more than 30 years. Although we can be forgiven for thinking on occasions, not least after such debate as this, that the problems are insoluble, no effort must be spared by the international community to reconcile the apparently irreconcilable, under the lengthening shadow of more widespread threats to peace throughout the region and as nuclear weapons become more widely available.
The latest outbreak of fighting in Southern Lebanon is a flagrant breach by Israel of the United Nations charter, involving a crossing of a territorial boundary and the violation of Lebanon by Israeli forces with such ferocity and with such a deployment of military might as to cause wholly unacceptable damage to the civilian population of that country. Indeed, it is clear that, unlike previous Israeli military operations, this one has caused substantial dissent within Israel itself once the operation ceased to be directed solely to re-establishing a security belt and became an all-out attempt to destroy the PLO, militarily and politically.
All of us acknowledge the right of the Israelis to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries, free from threats and acts of force. There can be doubt that the continuing armed harassment of the Galilean population by the PLO and the activities in Southern Lebanon generally have been extremely unhelpful to the already slow progress towards achieving a peaceful settlement, though scarcely sufficient to justify the invasion of Lebanon on the scale that we have witnessed in recent weeks.
This attempt to resolve the Palestinian problem by eliminating the PLO by military means cannot succeed. The Palestinian people espouse self-determination in their homeland in exactly the same way as the Israelis did after the Second World War. The PLO is a symbol of a widespread feeling among Palestinians about the need for a national identity and is the principal instrument for achieving it. The defeat of the PLO in Lebanon will not destroy that purpose. It can only delay its fulfilment, and


then possibly only until such time as Arab fundamentalists ensure that relationships between the Arab world and Israel are so soured that the security of Israel is once again seriously threatened.
The question that remains, and will remain after the conflict in Lebanon has ceased, is: how can that Palestinian aspiration be achieved and Israel be guaranteed the security of her State to which she is equally entitled? Similarly, Lebanon is entitled to relief from the conflicts of the last few years, which have destroyed that once prosperous and relatively stable country. How can her security be guaranteed by the international community? What assistance will she require in the difficult task of reconstruction and rehabilitation with which she is faced? I welcomed the Foreign Secretary's assurances that Britain would play a part in that process.
A ceasefire, withdrawal of all foreign forces and the establishment of a secure boundary between Lebanon and Israel must be accepted by all the parties. It would be preferable if that could be guaranteed by the United Nations, if necessary with more adequate forces and additional powers to ensure that a demilitarised zone straddling the border between the two countries is properly enforced. In the absence of Soviet agreement to that course of action, or if there is lack of resolve among other members of the Security Council, some other mutually acceptable multinational force with European elements must be negotiated.
Any British contribution to such a force should be contingent upon progress being made towards some resolution of the West Bank problem which proffers the real hope of self-determination for the Palestinians. In that connection we are bound to ask, not with any sense of hostility towards her, whether Israel is prepared to cease the establishment of further Israeli settlements on the West Bank and to allow the resettlement there of as many Palestinian refugees from Lebanon as are willing to live there in peace.
If that policy were to be pursued as a transitional arrangement for an interim period of five years, there could be the prospect of genuine self-government at the end of that period, which could accommodate the Palestinian aspirations for a national identity within the foreseeable future.
In view of her history and that of Jews throughout the world, Israel should be the first to recognise those aspirations. Israel is now sufficiently strong and established within the region to cast off the understandable insecurities of her past and to look ahead with enthusiasm to the prospects of playing a leading part in the industrial and agricultural development of the Middle East, which would develop naturally if Israel was prepared to accept international guarantees of her sovereignty in return for a homeland for the Palestinian peoples.
Surely, after 33 years of existence, it is time for Israel to show magnanimity and courage, and to face a new future. Britain's interest is undoubtedly to see that all the peoples of the Middle East achieve economic and social development in an environment of freedom, stability and peace Our friendship with Israel and acceptance of her right to secure boundaries, as well as our recognition of the rights of the Palestinians, requires us to play as constructive a part as possible in persuading our American allies and our European partners to work towards the objectives that I have outlined.

Mr. Roland Moyle: We have had an interesting debate. I listened to most of the speeches. The important factor was that it was a good-tempered debate, although my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) was subjected to some harassment, which he was well able to handle himself.
The debate has been notable for a large number of condemnations of the Israeli invasion of South Lebanon and the disproportionate nature of the action taken by the Israeli military and defence forces. At this late stage in the evening there is little that my oratory could add to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and others have said on that subject. I compliment the Foreign Secretary on his speech.
I should like to stress two points. First, Israel has been placed under an obligation by the Security Council to withdraw from the Lebanon. I believe that she ought to do so. Secondly, although we may criticise the Israeli Government, we are not necessarily criticising the Israeli State. There are many voices within Israel urging restraint upon the Israeli Government. The united support for military action which was so obvious in previous campaigns is not present today.
It is a source of some satisfaction on the Opposition Benches that our sister party, the Labour Alliance, which is one of the parties in the Socialist International, has been a leading voice in urging restraint upon the Israeli Government. The Labour Alliance has urged the Israeli Government not to authorise the bombing of citizens and non-combatants, and it has pointed out that the original aims of the operation which was called "Peace in Galilee" had been grossly exceeded and ought not to have been so exceeded. By taking that line the Israeli Labour Alliance has helped to maintain Israeli credibility as a leading democratic State.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I have listened to what my right hon. Friend has just said. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) made the same claim. I have read every news item and watched every broadcast, and I am still waiting to see the Israeli Labour Party dissociate itself from the national consensus in Israel over the invasion of the Lebanon. It just does not exist.

Mr. Moyle: I shall provide my hon. Friend with the appropriate documentation at a later stage. The immense amount of good will that Israel earned by the evacuation of Sinai has been recklessly squandered. It is natural that we should concentrate on the vast human tragedy in Southern Lebanon; and most speeches have done that.
I am uneasy about the way in which international law has been treated as a result of the crisis in Southern Lebanon. It is easy to sneer at the United Nations. It is obvious that it has little power to affect the position in the face of determined opposition by well-armed forces in any part of the world. The United Nations represents one of humanity's best hopes of building a system of international procedure and law that might lead to the avoidance of war as a method of settling disputes. In any crisis, nations should consider what they might do to build up the authority of the United Nations. We were right to go immediately to the Security Council about the Falkland Islands and obtain a Security Council resolution that authorised any subsequent action that we might take.
I understand Israel's reservations about the United Nations peace keeping force in view of its bitter


experience in 1967, when, as soon as the Egyptian forces approached, the United Nations forces pulled up their sticks and disappeared, leaving Israel to be attacked by the Egyptians. The Israelis have gone far beyond those reservations by the action they have taken. They have flouted Security Council resolutions 508 and 509. They rolled over the United Nations interim force in the Lebanon without paying lip-service to the moral authority to which I should have thought a United Nations peacekeeping force was entitled. The Israelis have not served the United Nations well, and it may be that, long after the dead have been buried and regrettably forgotten, that is the casualty that will remain.
Let us hope that the ultimate, gruesome fatuity of a military assault on Beirut will not take place. The Israeli Labour Party is urging that that should not happen as part of its campaign to try to restrain the Israeli Government from bombarding non-combatant populations and concentrations in cities. The Israelis could bombard West Beirut: they have the artillery and jet planes to do so. Bombardments assist conquests, but they will never conquer a territory. They might, however, inflict further gross casualties on the civilian population of Beirut, and that would add to the criticism of the Israeli Government that is expressed in much of the world outside Israel.
If Israel is to acquire West Beirut, it will have to move troops into the Palestinian area. That will mean street fighting. If the Palestinians have any fighting spirit left, the casualties inflicted on the Israeli defence forces in that fighting will exceed those that they have suffered in any of their previous wars in the Middle East. I hope that wiser counsels will prevail.
It is not possible to destroy the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in whatever form it has existed or may exist in future as a result of what has happened in South Lebanon. There is not the divergence of interests between the Palestinians and the PLO which many Israelis sometimes say that they see. That is what the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said.
The Palestinians have been disrupted socially and politically and probably they have been destroyed militarily as a result of the activities of the past two weeks. I can understand that the possession of a large number of weapons must have made the Palestinians stand tall in their own sight. However, in the outside world the real importance of the PLO depended not on its weaponry but on its power to speak for Palestinians in the Lebanon, on the West Bank, Gaza, along the Gulf and wherever they happen to be. I agree with the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) that there are considerable advantages from the Palestinian point of view in the PLO being deprived of its weapons. The possession of a large number of weapons by the Palestinians led them to adopt military postures that attracted a fate that they could not ward off from an army that they could never hurt, no matter how many weapons they acquired, because they would never be in the same league as the Israeli defence forces.

Mr. Lawrence: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one feature of Conor Cruise O'Brien's article? He observed that if Israel loses just once it will go. Is that not the essential difference between the criticisms

that can be made about situations that apply elsewhere in the world and the criticism that is made against the State of Israel, which is terrified of losing one major war?

Mr. Moyle: There is something to be said for that. Of course, it is no longer as valid as it was now that there is a peace treaty with Egypt which gives Israel a secure frontier with the largest Arab State.
Despite what has happened, within a relatively short time the Palestinians will cobble together a social and political organisation, and before long they will again be speaking for the Palestinians in Gaza, on the West Bank, in South Lebanon and along the Gulf.
Obviously the road to a solution of the Lebanese problem depends ultimately on a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But a step along that road and towards immediate peace could well be the restoration of a respected Government in Lebanon. It is important to note that the Lebanese want to try to do this. There is a theory that the Lebanese problem is insoluble so long as the Palestinians remain among them. Palestinian power has been broken, at least temporarily.
Prior to the incursion of the Palestine Liberation Organisation the Lebanese got together a polity and made it work with what can be seen in retrospect to be political genius of a high order. That does not mean that the previous order can be restored now that Palestinian power has gone temporarily. There is a bitterness between many of the factions which has bitten deep in the Lebanon as a result of the events of the last six or seven years. In many cases there is a vested interest in fragmentation which is encrusted. One cannot be optimistic, therefore, about the forming of a respected and authoritative Lebanese Government.
If the operation is to succeed, the international community must help. It is good to know that Israel is doing much to help the civilian relief operation, but the whole of South Lebanon should be treated as a civil disaster area and an international disaster relief operation ought to be mounted. The best way of doing that is to make sure that the relief flows directly into Southern Lebanon through Lebanese ports and is maintained wherever possible by international organisations such as UNRRA and others.
The Israelis, the Lebanese and many others, including the Americans, also want an international peace keeping force. This might be done by the United Nations through an expansion of its existing operation, but the handling of UNIFIL in the last couple of weeks cannot have improved the authority of any peace keeping force of that sort. Therefore, the suggestion has been made that there should be a multinational peacekeeping force outside the control of the United Nations.
There are considerable problems. In an area where fighting is endemic—that distinguishes it from Sinai—which country will be keen to put its young men at risk in the cause of other nations' quarrels? How will the necessary political control and accountability be achieved? If an authoritative Lebanese Government were eventually formed, they might deal with the diplomatic and political control of such a force. For it to emerge from discussions between Israel and America or even from countries in Western Europe would not be easy.
Elsewhere the ripples of the damage are spreading. For instance, President Mubarak, who is the linchpin of the Camp David agreements, does not seem any longer to be


so confident that an alliance with the Americans provides him with the strength that he once thought it did, and he is beginning to say so. He is no longer even so confident of his home position. Like many other Arab conservative leaders, he has traded very much on the concluding stages of the Camp David agreement. Many Arabs have been prepared to tolerate what he has been doing because he inherited the situation and could not be expected to turn his hack on the opportunity of re-acquiring Egyptian territory. But now he has been quiet while his brother Arabs in some ways have been attacked by the ally of the United States. His position at home is no longer as secure as it once was as a result.
It has been mentioned in the debate that there may be a general tendency for Arabs in the Middle East to turn to what is happening in Iran. After all, they can say that these shias in Iran can certainly win their battles. What is more, they can tell the United States of America where it gets off and have done so successfully.
The Arab attitude to these situations is very complex indeed. Admittedly, many Arabs were privately quite happy to see the damage that has been done to the PLO. Nobody likes refugees, particularly those who live among them. On the other hand, they have been severely disillusioned at the non-activity of the Americans in failing to act more vigorously to restrain the Israelis.
Arabs tend to reflect considerably on these matters before taking action, but in the long run the shias of Iran may well form a very dangerous force in the Middle East—which, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) pointed out, could be a great danger to our interests in the Middle East.
Whatever happens in Lebanon, I think that the Israelis will eventually wish to return to negotiation on the Camp David process with a view to achieving autonomy. I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), for whose speech I was unfortunately absent, that the Camp David process should be encouraged. It is all very well to say in Europe that that process is dead, but in the end it will die only when the Egyptians and the Americans become exhausted by attempts to put it into operation—and they are a long way short of that yet. When that happens, as I believe that some day it must—and here I return to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East—I believe that the principles of the Venice declaration and of the Fahd plan must be honed and kept against the day when the Americans, the Egyptians and by then, one hopes, the Israelis want an alternative to the Camp David peace process.
I believe that the events of the past two weeks must be left in the main to the judgment of Israel's neighbours rather than to that of Western Europeans. The Israelis say that they earnestly desire peace with their neighbours, and I see no reason to doubt their sincerity. Most States desire to live in pace if they can, and this must be particularly true in the long term for Israel, which is a tiny State in human terms despite its current military might relative to its neighbours. Indeed, the Israelis have shown in relation to Egypt that once they have a peace treaty they are prepared to go to considerable lengths to see that it is implemented.
Despite appearances, therefore, it is conceivable that "Operation Peace in Galilee" and its extension was meant as a contribution to peace. The judgment as to whether it was such a contribution will be made by Israel's Arab

neighbours—not just the Arab world in general, but more specifically by Egyptians and Jordanians, by Lebanese of various factions, by Syrians and by Saudis. The fact that few of those countries have what we would recognise as democratic constitutions should not blind us to the fact that there is such a thing as Arab public opinion and that in the end few Arab leaders can ignore it. Its reaction to the events of the past two or three weeks will therefore be crucial. We can only hope that in the long run, despite expectations, the judgment passed will be charitable.
Meanwhile, the chess board has in effect been thrown from the table on to the floor and the pieces have been scattered. The pieces must now be picked up and rearranged, hopefully, in a better pattern. Arab pride, which has been hammered between Israeli armour and Iranian fanaticism, must be soothed and supported—but how is certainly not clear. Arab moderation must be encouraged, although I do not believe that this has been made any easier than it was before the invasion. Perhaps a new Lebanese Government of authority can be encouraged to grow where the old one withered away, although massive social problems of disruption have now been added to the complex political problems of Southern Lebanon which all the predecessors of such a potential Lebanese Government failed to solve, so one cannot be optimistic on that score either.
The PLO must be encouraged to recognise Israel's right to exist, but, although it has every national reason to do so in self-interest, it has probably not been put into the proper frame of mind by the Israeli attack.
New peacekeeping arrangements must be cobbled together. The suggestion may even be made that British and other Western forces might take part. That road bristles with difficulties, given that it would be unwise to be seen to be colluding with an Israeli invasion and against a background of the rough handling of the existing United Nations peacekeeping force.
Israeli forces must withdraw. It is not easy to foresee their doing this if they remain determined never to allow the PLO or the Palestinians to get anywhere near to Northern Israel. The danger is that Israel will easily end up adding the role of an occupying Power in South Lebanon to that of an occupying Power on the West Bank and Gaza. Many Israelis would be appalled by that prospect, including the Labour alignment in Israel. Above all, the United States must be encouraged to exert its influence on the side of wisdom.
It will not be easy to put these pieces together again in a new pattern, but we must try, because the Middle East is the flashpoint of the world. We cannot be happy while so many people are willing to play with explosives too near oil. If we do not exert ourselves, the situation could be the ruin of us all. Europe cannot act directly on the Middle East. It can only act, as my right hon. Friend said, by acting on the Americans. That is why the risk that the Americans are running to their standing in the Middle East is so worrying to us all.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Most of the debate has, naturally enough, been about the situation in the Lebanon, but there have been references, including a powerful speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), to the anxious situation in the Gulf. I shall start by saying something about that.
Since the Conservative Government were elected in 1979, we have made a big effort to reassure the rulers and the peoples in the Gulf. They are now in no doubt that Britain's friendship for them is lively and energetic and that we are willing to give them help when they need it. We are in close touch with all of them and know at first hand of their anxieties. They know that we are willing to respond in any way that they may require.
They are not anxious to call for American help, partly because of the United States support for Israel, which weighs heavily with some of them, and partly because they do not want to transform their problem into what they do not believe it to be at present—a confrontation between East and West. One can understand that.
The Iranian regime is not at present pro-Soviet. It has been hostile to the Soviet aggression in Afghanistan. We have no desire to influence who governs in Tehran. We should like to build, if possible, a reasonable relationship with that Government. Because of that, we hope very much that the Iraq-Iran war can be brought to an end as soon as possible without an Iranian invasion of Iraq. We hope that the Iranians will accept the independence and the crucial importance to the West of our friends in the Gulf.
On the Middle East in general, all those now present have been familiar over the years with the traditional arguments. Tonight's debate has been different. It has been made different by the scale of the suffering now taking place. We have all been conscious of the dramatic events in the Falklands, which have led to the loss of several hundred British and Argentine lives. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland reminded the House earlier today of the 2,000 victims of terrorism in the Province.
I agree that all figures must be speculative, but from our information I confirm the figures given by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Our information from the Red Cross and the Lebanese authorities is that so far up to 14,000 people have died in the fighting in Lebanon and up to 20,000 have been wounded.
Suffering on that scale transcends ordinary arguments, and we have all felt that. The House has shown the strong and deep feelings that events such as these arouse in many of us. The speeches of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) illustrated that eloquently.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), in attempting to explain the Israeli attack, referred to the attack on Ambassador Argov. Many of us know, like and respect Mr. Argov. We were all horrified by the brutal attack on him and wish him full recovery. I expect that the attack will be a matter of legal proceedings, and obviously I cannot say more about it. I am a little surprised that others in this country, knowing our legal procedures, should have been so quick to publish their verdicts.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West correctly told us that there is a web of international terrorism, and Israel has been one of the chief sufferers, although not the only one. Eleven PLO officials have been assassinated in five different places since 1979 and seven others have been seriously injured in assassination attempts, including the mayor of Nablus, whom many of us know.
The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) made a compelling speech, but gave some credence to the notion that the settlements in North Galilee were under constant rocket attack in recent times. They were in earlier times and have been occasionally very recently. However, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, according to our information there was no shelling of these settlements from 24 July 1981—the date of the ceasefire—until 9 May 1982, when for the second time the Israelis bombed Beirut and the PLO responded.
I think that I have said enough about that to suggest that the measured comments that we and our partners in the Ten have made about these events are abundantly justified.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), who is usually fair in debate, was driven a bit hard tonight. His criticisms of my right hon. Friend and the comparison that he drew between the Israeli action and our own in the Falklands was well wide of the mark. There are some small differences. We were repossessing our own territory, whereas they are invading the territory of others. We were asserting the right of self-determination, whereas they are denying it.
I should like to make several detailed points which may be of interest to the House, some of which have been raised. We are very much concerned about the safety of the British community in the Lebanon. We have arranged for a British merchant ship now in Cyprus to arrive in the Lebanese port of Jounié early on 24 June to pick up United Kingdom and Commonwealth nationals who wish to leave the Lebanon. The BBC is broadcasting to that effect, and I hope that those concerned who wish to leave the Lebanon at this time will take advantage of the opportunity that we are providing. The Ambassador, Mr. Roberts, and his staff remain in West Beirut for the time being.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East, during his excellent speech, asked a specific question about the treatment of prisoners. The Belgian Presidency, on behalf of the Ten, asked the Israelis on 14 June for a number of assurances. One was that the relevant Geneva conventions would be applied in Israeli-occupied Lebanon, especially with regard to prisoners. We have not yet received a reply to those representations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) and a number of other hon. Members asked about measures against Israel following our criticism of what it had done. He knows that the signing of the second financial protocol has been postponed and that the postponement decision has been confirmed. The Government have withdrawn an invitation that had been issued to the Israelis to attend the British Army equipment exhibition which began yesterday. Other measures have been, and are being, considered, but decisions have not yet been taken. I cannot say more about that now.
I come to the central issue and to the pertinent remarks of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), based on his experience, and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas). They reminded us, correctly, of the advantages of the autonomy process. There can be nothing wrong with the principle involved or with the actual ideas in the agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) gave the details. There is the idea of an interim period of self-government, followed by determination of the future of the occupied territories. The negotiations between the three States are bogged down, not least because the Israeli interpretation of autonomy is now


substantially different from that put forward at the time of the agreement and that put forward by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and understood by President Carter and by both Egyptian Presidents who have been involved. That is one of the main reasons why the talks have not made progress recently.
One of the underlying difficulties is that autonomy, by definition, and self-government, by definition, require the participation of the Palestinians who live in the areas concerned. For one reason or another—different people have different analyses—that has not been forthcoming. It is a matter of judgment whether that participation will be easier or less easy after what has happened. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East quoted a speech by the mayor of Bethlehem. Many of us have met the mayor and know him to be a passionate moderate. It did not seem to be the mayor's view that things would be easier in that regard after what has happened in the Lebanon. Time will show whether he spoke truly.
It seems to the Government that there are three problems that can to some extent be separated. There is the immediate problem of Beirut. I agree with the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) about bringing the killing to an end and preventing fresh killing. We support what the United States and Mr. Habib are attempting in that regard. There is the problem of Lebanon itself. I noted particularly the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South. There is the need to rebuild houses, hospitals and schools, in which we shall all, rightly, be involved.
There is also the need, if we can, to help the Lebanese to rebuild the consensus by which Lebanon alone can survive, free of illegitimate foreign pressure, from wherever it comes. It is right, as a matter of history, to say that the consensus was badly cracked before the PLO came to Lebanon. Nevertheless, I believe that it is only through such consensus that Lebanon can be governed. I also believe, from what I hear and read, that this is the overpowering wish of almost everyone who is Lebanese. Perhaps, indirectly, we can help in that regard.
The problem that has occupied the House for most of the time is that of the Palestinians. It is, of course, possible to kill a lot of Palestinians. But no one in the House believes in the idea that one can thus remove the Palestinian question from the agenda. I should have thought that any such idea would be deeply repulsive, because it is deeply familiar to the Jewish people.
We have no illusions about the PLO. It has not taken the advice which we, and previous Governments no doubt, have given. It has not clearly abandoned talk of an armed struggle. It has missed some chances to show unequivocally and in public that it is willing to accept Israel once Israel accepts Palestinian rights. It had an opportunity at the time of discussion of the Fahd plan, which started well but did not materialize. There are quotations one way and quotations the other way, and the total effect is muffled and unclear.
We all accept—even, I think, the Palestinians would accept—that it would be better if the Palestinians were not in Lebanon. But where would they go? Are they to wander for ever round the Middle East, carrying their burden of bitterness, and tempted more and more to violence as they find that political doors are closed? They will not forget the towns and villages from which they sprang and which

are now occupied. That is human nature. They have rights, and the denial of those rights is one—though not the only—cause of instability in the Middle East.
We cannot and do not wish to impose a settlement. How can we? All that we can do is to set out principles—as we tried to do at Venice, and in my view they have worn well—which we believe are a necessary part of a settlement. All that we can do is to edge those concerned to the extent that we can towards the negotiating table, to encourage those in the area who wish to talk, and to discourage those who wish to kill.
The basis on which peace could be—and I still hope will be—found is fairly clear. It is the basis which my hon. Friend the Member for Melton set out in his own words. They are not the words which I would choose, but the basis is clear. It is a basis of territories for peace. That is the basis of resolution 242, which is still the key Security Council text in this regard. It was the basis of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, to which tribute has been paid, under which the Israelis evacuated Sinai at some sacrifice and in return secured peace with Egypt.
Of course, it is more difficult for Israel to apply that principle of territories for peace as one gets closer to the heartland of Israel. It is more difficult to apply that principle on the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. There is a choice for Israel. It is a remarkably difficult choice for her, and one with which we must sympathise. Is she to base her security on buffer zones and occupied territories, whose inhabitants are oppressed and denied their rights, accompanied perhaps by punitive expeditions to chase the Palestinians yet further from her borders? Or is she to respect the values on which I understand the State of Israel is based and grant to others the rights which Israelis quite properly claim for themselves?
If the Israelis take the second choice and accept that Palestinians have political rights and that those rights can be exercised only on the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, and if she were ready to take that giant leap—let no one here in the security of this House underestimate the difficulty of making that leap—she would be entitled to turn to the international community and require arrangements to be made to provide for security, demilitarisation, international guarantees, international forces, and perhaps special status for Jerusalem.
I give those simply as illustrations. There has been no shortage of ideas on all these matters over the years. They gather dust in the cupboards of every major Foreign Office in the world. Ingenious ideas are not lacking to deal with those important practical matters. What is missing is the hard decision of principle. Once the principle is decided, the arrangements can follow. That acceptance of the principle is a long way off this evening, but I am sure that it is in that direction that those concerned must go.
We must not be patronising or overestimate our influence. We have an influence and we have found during the past three years that that influence is greater when it is exerted with our partners in the Ten.
The United States has a much greater influence and we have a responsibility to expound our ideas to it and to keep in close touch. It is not always a question of saying the same thing and making the same proposals at the same time, but of avoiding any contradictions and trying to work in harmony with it.
So we take the practical but also, I believe, principled approach that was started at Venice, although it was misunderstood and, to a large extent, rejected in Israel, and which I believe is valid—

It being Twelve o' clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Petition

National Health Service Pay

Dr. Edmund Marshall: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present to the House a petition signed by 466 of my constituents relating to National Health Service pay. The signatures on the petition were collected from members of the general public during recent days of protest action by National Health Service employees in the town of Goole.
The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble Petition of the undersigned residents of the Goole Parliamentary constituency sheweth:—
That present rates of pay of National Health Service staff are totally inadequate in view of the present cost of living.
Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will do all in its power to urge the Government to make an increased offer or to refer the matter to arbitration.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Fishing Industry (Cornwall)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. David Penhaligon: I welcome the opportunity of the Adjournment debate because, once again, I wish to raise in the House the plight of the Cornish mackerel fishermen. The Minister will be aware that it is not the first time that I have used the various opportunities available to hon. Members in the House to present local fears.
The current concern of the mackerel fishermen in Cornwall is a recommendation by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which has recommended that a regulation should be made and enforced that the catching of mackerel of less than 30 cm. in length shall stop. I am not sure whether that means catching or landing the mackerel of less than 30 cm. However, in reality I understand that the regulation is to ban the landing of mackerel below that size.
As the Minister will know, concern has long been felt by the fishermen in my part of the world about conservation of stocks, and they have chided successive Ministers for not doing more. It is disappointing that I am forced to point out to the Minister that this particular regulation could make the matter worse.
The belief locally is that, if the regulation were enforced, hand-lining——the traditional form of catching mackerel in Cornwall—would become uneconomic and cease, Secondly, and ironically, there is a fear that it could result in more mackerel being caught than hitherto.
Hand-lining, or feathering, as I used to know it, is the backbone of Cornish fishing. In essence, the method consists of a man on a fairly unsophisticated boat holding a line over the side of the boat on which there are about 20 or 30 hooks, slightly disguised by feathers. The mackerel, not being desperately bright, try to eat the feathers and are thus caught.
Mackerel are caught in that way in fairly large quantities. The hand-liners sell their catch to the better end of the market for processing into smoked fish and some of the rest of their supply—this is by no means unimportant—are sold to the long-liners, the other half of the Cornish fishing industry, for bait. That process has existed for some time and been quite satisfactory.
The problem is that over 70 per cent. of the fish now caught by hand-lining are less than 30 cm in length. Presumably, that means that, if the regulation is enforced, all those mackerel will have to be thrown away. Hand-lining will become uneconomic. All the vessels designed to operate in that way will cease to function. The long-lining people will be short of bait and during the peak of the mackerel season, when the long-liners join the feather fisherman in chasing the mackerel off Cornwall, they will find themselves in the same difficulty.
For six months of the year—in winter—the fishermen have nothing other than unemployment to look forward to. If the Minister checks the statistics he will see that male unemployment is now higher than 20 per cent. In addition, the hand-liners may be tempted to compete for shellfish. Some people believe that the only shellfish remaining in Cornwall are those that are stuffed and sit in a museum. The stocks of shellfish are under severe pressure and will not stand more. Several thousand jobs are at stake. Newlyn

is not in my constituency, but it is affected to the greatest extent. Looe, which is not in my constituency, and Mevagissey, which is, will also be affected. Shore jobs such as boat repairs, fuel supplies, radio services, ships' stores, chandlery and other supply companies will be squeezed to a greater or lesser extent. If the regulation were enforced it would make hand-lining or feathering uneconomic and a large slab of the Cornish fishing industry as we know it would disappear.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that mackerel is the keystone of Cornish fishing. Pull out that key and the whole industry will begin to crumble. I am asking the Minister to say that, if the regulation is presented to the Commission, he will argue for an exemption for the hand-liners. It cannot be seriously argued that such an exemption would affect conservation programmes. The percentage of mackerel caught by this method is small. If mackerel had been caught only by hand-lining, there would not be any conservation problem in my part of the world.
If the hand-liners had had the monopoly rights to local mackerel, there would have been no problem. They produce a high-quality, hand-sorted fish. They use very little fuel. The industry is light on capital requirements, and that is unusual for the fishing industry. It is a whole way of life for those in the small coves and little villages that sneak in and out of the valleys that make up the Cornish coast that so many find magnificent during their summer visits. A whole way of life is at stake because of a regulation. An exemption would cost very little in terms of conservation.
The second fear is that the change in regulations could result in more mackerel being caught. That sounds ironic and silly, but it is feared that the amount of fish that can be landed by the armada that arrives in January from the North-East to supply the Soviet factory boats will be similar to that allowed in recent years. However, if they have to throw 70 per cent. of their catch away because the fish are less than 30 cm, the amount of fish caught—if not landed—will increase substantially. Indeed, if 70 per cent. is the right figure, it will treble.
We all know what happens. The net is pulled in and the men inspect the fish. If the size is not right they slip it, or slip the net and let the mackerel return to the sea. It is now accepted that that process kills virtually all the mackerel in the net. It is crazy to have a process which, in the aim of conservation, ends up with keeping one fish and throwing two away. There is a real fear that if the regulations are fully enforced this could result in more immature mackerel being caught. I am sure that the Minister does not wish that. I know that the Cornish fishermen do not wish it.
Some fishermen believe that one way of overcoming the dilemma is for the Ministry to take a sample in the shoals—it has the equipment to do so—and if at least 80 per cent. of the fish are more than 30 cm long the use of a net to catch mackerel should be banned. That is put forward as a serious proposition and I ask for the Minister's view on it.
My view on the method of conserving fish is no secret to the Minister. I could be described as a Luddite about fishing. The only way in which we can conserve mackerel stocks is to ban technique. Tons per man, tons landed at the quay or the other measures tried by successive Governments will not succeed. The fishermen will find ways around them by forgetting how many pounds there


are in a ton or how often they came to the quay. If we cannot ban technique, perhaps the Minister will consider my suggestion about sampling the mackerel.
The Minister and I are not in the same party, and we represent different parts of Britain and, in some ways, different interests in this argument. However, the Minister has a reputation in Cornwall for having done more than most of his predecessors to preserve the Cornish mackerel fishing industry. Great damage has already been done. Mackerel hand-liners say that a decade ago they could catch 40 stones of mackerel and that they would be unlucky if the fish in one tray were less than 30 cm long. They do not argue that conservation is unnecessary. Their argument is that hand-lining catches so few fish that to exempt them from the regulation cannot seriously affect the conservation that the Minister wishes to succeed in Cornwall.
Will the Minister guarantee tonight that he will promote the exemption for hand-line fishermen, as he has promoted exemption from some other regulations on size and length, each time on the basis that the number of mackerel caught is so small that it makes little difference to the total stock?

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I thank the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) for raising this matter on an Adjournment debate. I know that it is of considerable importance to him and to his colleagues with constituencies in the South-West, and I freely acknowledge that it is vital to the hand-liners, whose livelihood depends on fishing.
The hon. Gentleman said that I represent a constituency at almost the opposite end of the country to his. I know that some of my fellow countrymen are not always welcome when they fish off Cornwall, but my constituents are not among them. When I first represented my constituency, hand-lining for white fish was a main activity of fishermen there. My constituency contains one of the few remaining hand-lining ports. I have been out with the hand-liners and have seen how they do it. I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said about the quality of the fish that are caught. I acknowledge, too, the conservation aspects of what he said and his genuine concern on that matter. Therefore, I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman some assurances before I conclude my remarks.
We do not have any firm proposal from the Commission at this stage. There can be confusion, and people are rightly alert—they are alert because we have informed them. We have consulted the fishing organisations, but, at the moment, we do not have firm proposals. Certain proposals have been put forward by various advisory organisations, but we are still awaiting firm proposals from the Commission.
The reason for a 30 cm. minimum landing size for mackerel is to try to make more effective the existing measures for conserving the mackerel stock. The suggestion for a 30 cm. minimum landing size came from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—ICES. It is a scientific organisation that endeavours to give advice to Governments and to organisations such as the European Economic Community on fisheries conservation and management in the waters of the North

Atlantic. Its function, in making recommendations, is purely advisory. In its 1981 report, ICES drew attention to the decrease that had taken place in the North Sea and Western mackerel stocks in recent years as a result of over-exploitation. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging some of the measures that I and my Department have sought to promote not only domestically but in discussions in Europe.
On this occasion, ICES pointed to the importance of ensuring that spawning stocks are maintained at an appropriate level. If all the young mackerel are killed, there is no recruitment into the older age groups, which are more economic to exploit, and so the seed corn is destroyed. We wanted to try to restrict fishing on young mackerel below the age of three years. The 30 cm. size was arrived at to preserve the seed corn and to ensure that the stocks would recover, thereby improving the commercial fishing of larger size mackerel for the future. ICES accordingly recommended a minimum size of 30 cm. in all areas. The recommendation was subsequently endorsed by the European Community's scientific and technical committee for fisheries, subject to an allowance of up to 10 per cent. of undersized mackerel in any landing of mackerel.
The revised conservation regulation that was discussed at the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers last week did not include any provision for a minimum size for Western mackerel. Therefore, we have no formal proposal as such before us.
The hon. Gentleman is correct to raise this subject in the House at present. Once the Council of Ministers has adopted a regulation for conservation, the European Commission could introduce proposals. We are alert to that. I am grateful for the support and interest which has been expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
Before such a proposal could come into effect, it would be discussed in the Fisheries Council, so that there would be an opportunity for discussion. Once we have adopted the main regulation and the Commission bring forward further detailed proposals, we will have the opportunity for discussion. I shall welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposal first in the House of Commons, which is proper and right.
We are at a stage where, although proposals are made, there is no regulation. We took the initiative in my Department. We wrote to all the fishing interests alerting them to the possibility of the proposal of the 30 cm minimum size. We invited views from them. We are well aware of the impact that such a measure would have on both fishermen and processors. As the hon. Gentleman fairly said, we are talking not only of the fishermen who go to sea but of the many on the shore, particularly processors, who would feel a severe impact if the proposal were put into effect.
We are conscious of the serious effects that the proposal would have on the hand-line fishermen, about whom the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned. We have received a number of representations from them seeking a derogation from any minimum size measures for hand-liners. I assure the hon. Gentleman that in discussing any further legislative measures in the South-West mackerel fishery, we shall take full account of the special problems that face the fishermen and the processors.
However, I must also make if clear to the hon. Gentleman that in doing so we must strike a balance with the legitimate and correct objective of those who have


made the proposal, who are trying more effectively to conserve the mackerel stocks and therefore improve the fisheries for the future. Thereby we should take into account properly the scientific advice and at the same time the special needs that the hon. Gentleman has fairly and properly described.
As we do not have any proposals from the Commission at this stage, it is premature to say precisely what the reaction will be or how we should attempt to assess the outcome. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our concern to ensure that we take into account the social and economic effects of some of the measures, also given the fact that the quantity of the fish taken by that method is not great in relation to what is taken by other methods of fishing. We shall take that into account. I accept that those fishermen cannot move from place to place like others and exploit other fisheries in other areas. If they are stopped from using this method of fishing, they may divert to other stocks, such as shellfish, and create problems for other fishermen.
We have already alerted the Commission to our intention. When the discussions take place, we will have to look at the special case of the hand-liners. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that in any negotiations, either with the Commission or in the Fisheries Council, we shall bear in mind the needs of the hand-liners and do what we can to ensure that their livelihood is not affected by the proposal.
In the past we have not been deaf to the needs of that section of the industry. We have excluded smaller vessels, which included those of the hand-liners, from the licensing system for mackerel. We did that because we did not think that those smaller vessels were so dangerous to stocks as some of the larger vessels. When we negotiated the South-West mackerel box, which closes the season for mackerel fishing with certain types of nets, we excluded the hand-liners from that restriction. We have demonstrated in a practical way that we are aware of their problem and needs.
If the regulation came in and was applied—because of the discards—one could finish up with a measure that would not be as effective as those who originally proposed it or we would like it to be.

Mr. Penhaligon: The Minister is encouraging, but my good Cornish folk are blunt-speaking people. Will the Minister argue for an exemption for hand-liners?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall certainly argue for that. I cannot say what the outcome will be. We shall argue the position of the Cornish hand-liners both in the Commission and in the Council of Ministers. I cannot tell whether it might be a derogation of something else that could be negotiated. I should not like to pre-empt my negotiating position by saying that if I do not get one thing that will be a disaster. I give an undertaking that I shall explore every avenue, although I cannot give an undertaking as to what the outcome of the discussion will be. The case of the Cornish hand-liners will be put forward and the hon. Gentleman can give that assurance to the fishermen in his area.
There will be those who will argue strongly and purely from a scientific point of view, and others who will say that the regulation should be applied to everybody and that exceptions cannot be made for one area. The hon. Gentleman knows that I tend to be fairly blunt in fishery matters, as I have had to deal with fishermen for a long time. I believe that it is better to be blunt with them. They are often blunt and outspoken to me. I never look forward to an optimistic outcome. I make a realistic assessment of the position. There will be others who will argue contrary to us, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall argue the case as strongly as we can to ensure the best possible outcome. I hope that with that assurance the hon. Gentleman may go to bed and sleep slightly better.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.